Stargate vs Everclear (formerly Connext) Stargate leads by 10 points.
Stargate scores 10 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Stargate ranks #12 and Everclear (formerly Connext) #17 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Stargate51
vs
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #12 and #17 of 18
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5141+10.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
A floor bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge defaultEverclear (formerly Connext)Score 41Modular clearing layer for cross-chain liquidity nettingStrength: Speed — 4/10Watch-out: Direct end-user UI is minimal — Everclear is infrastructure first
Quick facts
At a glance
FactStargateEverclear (formerly Connext)
PricingSnapshotStargate user docs, "Fees" (stargateprotocol.gitbook.io/stargate/v2-user-docs/whats-new-in-stargate-v2/fees.md, fetched 30 September 2026): "In V1, Stargate charged a flat 6 bps fee for all transactions via V1 pools. In V2, with the help of the AI Planning Module (AIPM) Stargate V2 enables dynamic fees." The fee "refers to the difference between the input by the user on the source chain and the received amount on the destination chain", and on a depleted pathway "a rebate is offered to help rebalance the liquidity in the system." Gas is paid separately in the source-chain native token for "LayerZero's execution fee" and the "Fee to the DVN for verifying the message between LayerZero endpoints". The V2 page publishes no rate, so the flat figure the previous note carried is the V1 rate, not a V2 price. Stargate's own quote API (stargate.finance/api/v1) answered HTTP 410 and points to LayerZero's Value Transfer API.Everclear FAQ (docs.everclear.org/developers/faqs.md, fetched 30 September 2026): "Protocol fees are charged dynamically depending on the route (combination of asset, origin, destinations). Fees are levied against the amount sent." Gas is paid on top, and an intent that is not matched is discounted each epoch until netted ("discountBPS = (currentEpoch - entryEpoch - 1) * discountPerEpoch"). No fee rate is published on that page. This corrects the previous note: Everclear does charge the sender of an intent.
Asset coverageEditorialBroader route and liquidity coverage across supported token and chain pairsCross-chain liquidity netting for integrated dapps
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Stargate
51#12 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Stargate if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Everclear (formerly Connext)'s 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
EV
Everclear (formerly Connext)
41#17 of 18
Pick it when
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Stargate 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 — 4/10
Tradeoff
Direct end-user UI is minimal — Everclear is infrastructure first
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
StargateLeads
Choose Stargate if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 8/10 against 3/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 28)
Trust: 4/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 26)
Route clarity: 3/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 24)
StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Stargate on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Everclear (formerly Connext)Score 41Modular clearing layer for cross-chain liquidity nettingStrength: Speed — 4/10Watch-out: Direct end-user UI is minimal — Everclear is infrastructure first
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 5 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Stargate leads
Stargate8/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Stargate leads
Stargate3/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)2/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
weight 5.3 of 86Tie
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 2 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Stargate leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)2/10 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
Stargate20/20Everclear (formerly Connext)14/20
Stargate leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Stargate11.7/30Everclear (formerly Connext)6.5/30
Stargate leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Stargate2.7/10Everclear (formerly Connext)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Stargate3.2/8Everclear (formerly Connext)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Stargate6.9/18Everclear (formerly Connext)6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Stargate unless the term Everclear (formerly Connext) leads on is the one you are buying.
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Stargate 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
Stargate scores 10 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Stargate 51 (rank 12 of 18 bridges), Everclear (formerly Connext) 41 (rank 17 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
