Orbiter Finance vs Relay Relay leads by 25 points.
Relay scores 25 points above Orbiter Finance, led by route coverage, trust, and transfer speed. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 and Relay #1 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
Relay86
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #1 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+25.5
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below8661+25.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
RelayScore 86Cleaner bridge path for users who want low-friction multichain movementStrength: Speed — 9/10Watch-out: Relay's chain list on 2026-09-30 had no Sui, Stellar or Cosmos chains; Squid's chain data covers all threeOrbiter FinanceScore 61Maker-filled bridge across EVM chains and ten other chain types, including Solana, Tron, Starknet and TONStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: Deposits go to a Maker's externally owned address, not a contract; the payout is backed by an arbitration process and the Maker's margin deposit, not a verified cross-chain message
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactOrbiter FinanceRelay
PricingSnapshotOrbiter docs, "Maker System" (docs.orbiter.finance/welcome/maker-system.md, fetched 30 September 2026): each Maker sets its own charges - "Withholding Fee: A one-time charge to cover the cost of gas for transfers to the destination network." and "Trading Fee: Makers can choose a percentage of the trading value they wish to get from the per-transaction amount." - and "the minimum transaction value is 0.005 ETH". No percentage is published on that page or on the Bridge Protocol page, so the percentage range the previous note carried is not repeated. Orbiter's quote API (api.orbiter.finance, and the openapi.orbiter.finance mirror) did not answer on 30 September 2026, so no live quote was read.Relay docs, "Cost & Fee Structure" (docs.relay.link/references/api/api_core_concepts/fees, fetched 30 September 2026): four components - Execution Cost ("$0.02 flat fee - always included" plus a destination fill-gas estimate), Swap Cost (payments to liquidity providers, DEX fees and solver rebalancing; no rate published), Platform Fees, and integrator App Fees. The Platform Fee table reads "Token Bridge & Same-Chain Wrap/Unwrap Stablecoin Swap Major Swap Minor Swap Platform Fees charged to end users 0.00% 0.01% 0.06% 0.15%", so a same-token bridge carries a 0.00% platform fee. "For regular (non-gasless) transactions, the user pays origin gas directly from their own wallet to the network".
Asset coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionLower-friction cross-chain token movement across supported routes
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Pick it when
Orbiter Finance leads Relay on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Speed — 8/10
Tradeoff
Deposits go to a Maker's externally owned address, not a contract; the payout is backed by an arbitration process and the Maker's margin deposit, not a verified cross-chain message
Relay
86#1 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Relay if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Orbiter Finance's 7/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Speed — 9/10
Tradeoff
Relay's chain list on 2026-09-30 had no Sui, Stellar or Cosmos chains; Squid's chain data covers all three
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Orbiter Finance
Orbiter Finance leads Relay on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Orbiter FinanceScore 61Maker-filled bridge across EVM chains and ten other chain types, including Solana, Tron, Starknet and TONStrength: Speed — 8/10Watch-out: Deposits go to a Maker's externally owned address, not a contract; the payout is backed by an arbitration process and the Maker's margin deposit, not a verified cross-chain message
RelayLeads
Choose Relay if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 8/10 against 7/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 28)
Trust: 5/10 against 4/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 26)
Transfer speed: 9/10 against 8/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 22)
RelayScore 86Cleaner bridge path for users who want low-friction multichain movementStrength: Speed — 9/10Watch-out: Relay's chain list on 2026-09-30 had no Sui, Stellar or Cosmos chains; Squid's chain data covers all three
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Route coverage
by 1 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Relay leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Relay8/10 out of 10
Route clarity
weight 5.8 of 86Tie
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Relay7/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Relay leads
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Relay9/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Relay leads
Orbiter Finance4/10 out of 10
Relay5/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86
Orbiter Finance20/20Relay20/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orbiter Finance15.5/30Relay17.3/30
Relay leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orbiter Finance2.7/10Relay2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Orbiter Finance3.2/8Relay5.6/8
Relay leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Orbiter Finance6.9/18Relay12.5/18
Relay leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Relay unless the term Orbiter Finance leads on is the one you are buying.
Orbiter Finance leads Relay on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Route coverage (28%), Route clarity (24%), Execution speed (22%).
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Relay scores 25 points above Orbiter Finance, led by route coverage, trust, and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 of 18 bridges), Relay 86 (rank 1 of 18).
Reviewed means both products compared here was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
