Orbiter Finance vs Squid Router Squid Router leads by 1 point.
Squid Router scores 1 point above Orbiter Finance, led by route coverage and trust. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 and Squid Router #4 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
Squid Router62
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #4 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.2
Reproduced gap+1.3
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6261+1.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Squid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge feesOrbiter 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
FactOrbiter FinanceSquid Router
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.Squid docs, "Transaction times and fees" (docs.squidrouter.com/additional-resources/architecture/transaction-times-and-fees, fetched 30 September 2026; the page reads "Last updated 6 months ago"): "Squid currently charges no fees. The user will only pay gas fees on source and destination chains." Integrators may add their own fee: "Partners can elect a % fee they would like to charge, and Squid will receive a portion of this fee." Routes with a destination swap also pay Axelar relayer gas in the source-chain token ("This fee is paid to Axelar's relayers, who trustlessly pass messages and proofs across chains."). Squid's homepage (squidrouter.com) advertises "Avg total cost $0.02 $0.10" (Squid versus others), "Based on a $100 ETH transaction from Ethereum mainnet." The swap-leg percentage and relay-cost range the previous note carried are on neither page.
Asset coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionCross-asset swap and bridge across all Axelar-connected chains
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most — it scores 7/10 to Squid Router's 5/10 there (weight 24).
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
Squid Router
62#4 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Squid Router if route coverage matters most — it scores 10/10 to Orbiter Finance's 7/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 10/10
Tradeoff
Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Orbiter Finance
Choose Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most
Route clarity: 7/10 against 5/10 for Squid Router (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 7/10 for Squid Router (weight 22)
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
Squid RouterLeads
Choose Squid Router if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 10/10 against 7/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 28)
Trust: 5/10 against 4/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 26)
Squid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
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 3 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Squid Router leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Squid Router10/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Squid Router5/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Squid Router7/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Squid Router leads
Orbiter Finance4/10 out of 10
Squid Router5/10 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 Finance20/20Squid Router14/20
Orbiter Finance leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orbiter Finance15.5/30Squid Router16.4/30
Squid Router leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orbiter Finance2.7/10Squid Router2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Orbiter Finance3.2/8Squid Router3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Orbiter Finance6.9/18Squid Router12.5/18
Squid Router leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Squid Router unless the term Orbiter Finance leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most — it scores 7/10 to Squid Router's 5/10 there (weight 24).
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
Squid Router scores 1 point above Orbiter Finance, led by route coverage and trust. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 of 18 bridges), Squid Router 62 (rank 4 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
