Stargate vs Hop Protocol Stargate leads by 10 points.
Stargate scores 10 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Stargate ranks #12 and Hop Protocol #18 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Stargate51
vs
HOHop Protocol41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #12 and #18 of 18
No longer operatingEligibilityoperatingsunset 2026-10-23—+26.0for Stargate
Net of the terms+47.2
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−1.2
Reproduced gap+46.0
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.
EvidenceEvidence evidence high vs evidence low — how well each score is supported, not the score itself
Hop Protocol no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and is kept for reference: the engine zeroes its criteria block, whatever its cells say.
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 defaultHop ProtocolScore 41Withdrawn: the Ethereum-rollup bridge whose site now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactStargateHop Protocol
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.Withdrawn 23 October 2026 (hop.exchange serves a gambling page; app and route API down), so no current price exists. Last read, kept for the record: Hop user docs, "Fees" (docs.hop.exchange/basics/fees, fetched 30 September 2026; the page reads "Last updated 2 years ago"): "3. Bonder fee (0.05-0.30%)", AMM swap fees of "0.01% - 0.04%" per swap ("L2 <> L2 -> 0.02% - 0.08% swap fees (because two swaps)"), destination gas, and "To prevent spamming there is a minimum fee of $0.25 per Hop transfer." These are documentation figures only: on the same date app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error", the quote API api.hop.exchange returned a Cloudflare origin-DNS error, explorer.hop.exchange returned a Netlify "Site not found" page and hop.exchange served an unrelated gambling page, so no live Hop price could be read.
Asset coverageEditorialBroader route and liquidity coverage across supported token and chain pairsRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routes
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
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 Hop Protocol's 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
HO
Hop Protocol
41#18 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Hop Protocol if trust matters most — it scores 5/10 to Stargate's 4/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026
Tradeoff
Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
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 Hop Protocol (weight 28)
StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
HOHop Protocol
Choose Hop Protocol if trust matters most
Trust: 5/10 against 4/10 for Stargate (weight 26)
Route clarity: 4/10 against 3/10 for Stargate (weight 24)
Hop ProtocolScore 41Withdrawn: the Ethereum-rollup bridge whose site now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
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
Hop Protocol3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Stargate3/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
weight 5.3 of 86Tie
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Hop Protocol leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol5/10 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
Stargate20/20Hop Protocol14/20
Stargate leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Stargate11.7/30Hop Protocol0/30
Stargate leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Stargate2.7/10Hop Protocol2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Stargate3.2/8Hop Protocol3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Stargate6.9/18Hop Protocol6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Stargate unless the term Hop Protocol leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Hop Protocol if trust matters most — it scores 5/10 to Stargate'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.
Scored by Trust posture · 26% (Stargate 4/10, Hop Protocol 5/10)
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 Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Published scores, out of 100: Stargate 51 (rank 12 of 18 bridges), Hop Protocol 41 (rank 18 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
