Orbiter Finance vs Wormhole Orbiter Finance leads by 11 points.
Orbiter Finance scores 11 points above Wormhole, led by route clarity and transfer speed. Orbiter Finance ranks #7 and Wormhole #14 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Orbiter Finance61
vs
Wormhole50
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #14 of 18
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6150+11.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Orbiter Finance's lead rests on lighter criteria: Wormhole is ahead on trust, which carries more weight (26) than any criterion Orbiter Finance leads on (24).
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 messageWormholeScore 50Leading cross-chain messaging protocol connecting 30+ networksStrength: Route coverage — 7/10Watch-out: Higher fees on some routes than specialized bridges
Quick facts
At a glance
FactOrbiter FinanceWormhole
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.Wormhole Connect docs, "Routes" (wormhole.com/docs/ai/pages/products-connect-concepts-routes.md, fetched 30 September 2026): automatic routes deliver in one user transaction "for a small fee" - "Trustless relayers can execute the second transaction on the user's behalf, so the user only needs to perform one transaction on the origin chain to have the tokens delivered to the destination automatically - for a small fee." - while manual routes need a second, destination-chain transaction whose gas the user pays. No relayer fee amount is published on that page, so the dollar range the previous note carried is not repeated. Portal Bridge (portalbridge.com), Wormhole's consumer front end, renders client-side, so no live Portal quote was read.
Asset coverageEditorialToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transactionMajor assets across all connected chains
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most — it scores 7/10 to Wormhole'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
Wormhole
50#14 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Wormhole if trust matters most — it scores 7/10 to Orbiter Finance's 4/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Route coverage — 7/10
Tradeoff
Higher fees on some routes than specialized bridges
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Orbiter FinanceLeads
Choose Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most
Route clarity: 7/10 against 5/10 for Wormhole (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 4/10 for Wormhole (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
Wormhole
Choose Wormhole if trust matters most
Trust: 7/10 against 4/10 for Orbiter Finance (weight 26)
WormholeScore 50Leading cross-chain messaging protocol connecting 30+ networksStrength: Route coverage — 7/10Watch-out: Higher fees on some routes than specialized bridges
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
weight 6.7 of 86Tie
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Wormhole7/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Wormhole5/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Wormhole4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Wormhole leads
Orbiter Finance4/10 out of 10
Wormhole7/10 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 Finance20/20Wormhole14/20
Orbiter Finance leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Orbiter Finance15.5/30Wormhole14.1/30
Orbiter Finance leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Orbiter Finance2.7/10Wormhole2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Orbiter Finance3.2/8Wormhole6.4/8
Wormhole leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Orbiter Finance6.9/18Wormhole6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Orbiter Finance unless the term Wormhole leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Wormhole if trust matters most — it scores 7/10 to Orbiter Finance's 4/10 there (weight 26).
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 11 points above Wormhole, led by route clarity and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 of 18 bridges), Wormhole 50 (rank 14 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
