Squid Router vs Jumper Exchange Jumper Exchange leads by 1 point.
Jumper Exchange scores 1 point above Squid Router, led by route clarity. Squid Router ranks #4 and Jumper Exchange #3 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Squid Router62
vs
Jumper Exchange63
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #3 of 18
Jumper Exchange scores 1 point above Squid Router, led by route clarity.
Squid Router #4 of 1862
Jumper Exchange #3 of 1863
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termJumper Exchange leads on 1 of 4 published criteria; Squid Router on 2. The terms sum to the gap.
TermJumper ExchangeSquid RouterWeightPoints
Route coverage9/1010/106.7−1.7for Squid Router−0.9 of 32
Route clarity8/105/105.8+4.5for Jumper Exchange+2.3 of 32
Transfer speed6/107/105.3−1.4for Squid Router−0.7 of 32
Net of the terms+1.4
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+1.3
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6362+1.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Jumper Exchange's lead rests on lighter criteria: Squid Router is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Jumper Exchange leads on (24).
Jumper ExchangeScore 63LI.FI-powered bridge + DEX aggregator with route comparisonStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Quality of the underlying bridges varies — Jumper aggregates, it doesn't guaranteeSquid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactSquid RouterJumper Exchange
Bridge feeSnapshotSquid 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.Jumper's own terms page (jumper.exchange/legal/terms, now jumper.xyz) answered HTTP 403 on 30 September 2026, so the price is read from LI.FI, the routing layer Jumper runs on. LI.FI's FAQ (docs.li.fi/faqs/fees-monetization, fetched 30 September 2026) states "LI.FI charges a 0.25% service fee on each transaction." and "LI.FI also offers volume-based commercial discounts."; bridge, DEX and gas costs are separate ("Fee structures vary by bridge or DEX."). A same-day LI.FI quote requested with integrator=jumper.exchange for USDC Ethereum to Arbitrum (fromAmount=1000000000, six decimals) returned "toAmount":"1000000000", "feeCosts":[] and route "polymerStandard" (li.quest/v1/quote), i.e. no service fee was applied on the Jumper integrator for that route; gas is extra.
Asset coverageEditorialCross-asset swap and bridge across all Axelar-connected chainsCross-chain bridge aggregation across all LI.FI-supported routes
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Squid Router
62#4 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Squid Router if route coverage matters most — it scores 10/10 to Jumper Exchange's 9/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 10/10
Tradeoff
Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
Jumper Exchange
63#3 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Jumper Exchange if route clarity matters most — it scores 8/10 to Squid Router's 5/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Route coverage — 9/10
Tradeoff
Quality of the underlying bridges varies — Jumper aggregates, it doesn't guarantee
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Squid Router
Choose Squid Router if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 10/10 against 9/10 for Jumper Exchange (weight 28)
Transfer speed: 7/10 against 6/10 for Jumper Exchange (weight 22)
Squid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
Jumper ExchangeLeads
Choose Jumper Exchange if route clarity matters most
Route clarity: 8/10 against 5/10 for Squid Router (weight 24)
Jumper ExchangeScore 63LI.FI-powered bridge + DEX aggregator with route comparisonStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Quality of the underlying bridges varies — Jumper aggregates, it doesn't guarantee
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 86Squid Router leads
Squid Router10/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange9/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Jumper Exchange leads
Squid Router5/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange8/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Squid Router leads
Squid Router7/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange6/10 out of 10
Trust
weight 6.2 of 86Tie
Squid Router5/10 out of 10
Jumper Exchange5/10 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
Squid Router14/20Jumper Exchange14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Squid Router16.4/30Jumper Exchange16.9/30
Jumper Exchange leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Squid Router2.7/10Jumper Exchange2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Squid Router3.2/8Jumper Exchange3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Squid Router12.5/18Jumper Exchange12.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Jumper Exchange unless the term Squid Router leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Squid Router if route coverage matters most — it scores 10/10 to Jumper Exchange's 9/10 there (weight 28).
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
Jumper Exchange scores 1 point above Squid Router, led by route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Squid Router 62 (rank 4 of 18 bridges), Jumper Exchange 63 (rank 3 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
