Orbiter Finance vs Synapse Orbiter Finance leads by 10 points.
Orbiter Finance scores 10 points above Synapse, led by route coverage, route clarity, and transfer speed. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 and Synapse #11 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
Synapse51
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #11 of 18
Orbiter Finance scores 10 points above Synapse, led by route coverage, route clarity, and transfer speed.
Orbiter Finance #7 of 1861
Synapse #11 of 1851
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termOrbiter Finance leads on 3 of 4 published criteria; Synapse on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermOrbiter FinanceSynapseWeightPoints
Route coverage7/106/106.7+1.7for Orbiter Finance+0.9 of 32
Route clarity7/103/105.8+6.0for Orbiter Finance+3.1 of 32
Transfer speed8/107/105.3+1.4for Orbiter Finance+0.7 of 32
Net of the terms+9.1
Reproduced gap+9.1
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6151+10.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
EvidenceEvidence evidence high vs evidence medium — how well each score is supported, not the score itself
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 messageSynapseScore 51EVM-focused multichain bridge, with Solana reached through a separate bridgeStrength: Speed — 7/10Watch-out: Synapse's quote API answered "No bridge routes found" for USDC and ETH between Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism and Base on 2026-09-30, and again for ETH from Ethereum to Arbitrum and from Arbitrum to Optimism on 2026-10-23, when its /bridge/v2 endpoint returned HTTP 500. The bridge still settles transfers: its Ethereum contract (0x2796317b0fF8538F253012862c06787Adfb8cEb6) logged 50 TokenWithdraw and TokenMint events between 11 and 22 October 2026, the latest at 20:04 UTC on 22 October. Get a quote in its app before you rely on a route
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactOrbiter FinanceSynapse
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.No Synapse price could be read on 30 September 2026. The Synapse REST API (api.synapseprotocol.com), which its docs page docs.synapseprotocol.com/docs/Bridge/REST-API describes as the way to "retrieve quotes", returned "No bridge routes found" for USDC Ethereum to Arbitrum, Ethereum to Optimism and Arbitrum to Base and for ETH Ethereum to Arbitrum and Arbitrum to Optimism, and its /bridge/v2 endpoint returned "An unexpected error occurred in /bridge/v2. Please try again later." The Synapse docs pages read (Bridge, REST API, Supported Routes, Synapse Intent Network, contract pages) publish no fee rate, so the percentage the previous note carried is not repeated.
Asset coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionToken transfers through Synapse's legacy nUSD/nETH pools and its RFQ relayer network, where a route can be quoted
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Orbiter Finance if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Synapse's 6/10 there (weight 28).
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
Synapse
51#11 of 18
Pick it when
Synapse leads Orbiter Finance 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 — 7/10
Tradeoff
Synapse's quote API answered "No bridge routes found" for USDC and ETH between Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism and Base on 2026-09-30, and again for ETH from Ethereum to Arbitrum and from Arbitrum to Optimism on 2026-10-23, when its /bridge/v2 endpoint returned HTTP 500. The bridge still settles transfers: its Ethereum contract (0x2796317b0fF8538F253012862c06787Adfb8cEb6) logged 50 TokenWithdraw and TokenMint events between 11 and 22 October 2026, the latest at 20:04 UTC on 22 October. Get a quote in its app before you rely on a route
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Orbiter FinanceLeads
Choose Orbiter Finance if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 6/10 for Synapse (weight 28)
Route clarity: 7/10 against 3/10 for Synapse (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 7/10 for Synapse (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
Synapse
Synapse leads Orbiter Finance on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
SynapseScore 51EVM-focused multichain bridge, with Solana reached through a separate bridgeStrength: Speed — 7/10Watch-out: Synapse's quote API answered "No bridge routes found" for USDC and ETH between Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism and Base on 2026-09-30, and again for ETH from Ethereum to Arbitrum and from Arbitrum to Optimism on 2026-10-23, when its /bridge/v2 endpoint returned HTTP 500. The bridge still settles transfers: its Ethereum contract (0x2796317b0fF8538F253012862c06787Adfb8cEb6) logged 50 TokenWithdraw and TokenMint events between 11 and 22 October 2026, the latest at 20:04 UTC on 22 October. Get a quote in its app before you rely on a route
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 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Synapse6/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Synapse3/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Synapse7/10 out of 10
Trust
weight 6.2 of 86Tie
Orbiter Finance4/10 out of 10
Synapse4/10 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 Finance20/20Synapse20/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orbiter Finance15.5/30Synapse12/30
Orbiter Finance leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orbiter Finance2.7/10Synapse2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Orbiter Finance3.2/8Synapse3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Orbiter Finance6.9/18Synapse6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Orbiter Finance unless the term Synapse leads on is the one you are buying.
Synapse leads Orbiter Finance 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
Orbiter Finance scores 10 points above Synapse, led by route coverage, route clarity, and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 of 18 bridges), Synapse 51 (rank 11 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
