Stargate vs Orbiter Finance Orbiter Finance leads by 10 points.
Orbiter Finance scores 10 points above Stargate, led by route clarity and transfer speed. Stargate ranks #12 and Orbiter Finance #7 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Stargate51
vs
Orbiter Finance61
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #12 and #7 of 18
Orbiter Finance scores 10 points above Stargate, led by route clarity and transfer speed.
Stargate #12 of 1851
Orbiter Finance #7 of 1861
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 2 of 4 published criteria; Stargate on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermOrbiter FinanceStargateWeightPoints
Route coverage7/108/106.7−1.7for Stargate−0.9 of 32
Route clarity7/103/105.8+6.0for Orbiter Finance+3.1 of 32
Transfer speed8/104/105.3+5.5for Orbiter Finance+2.8 of 32
Net of the terms+9.7
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+9.9
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.
Orbiter Finance's lead rests on lighter criteria: Stargate is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) 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 messageStargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactStargateOrbiter Finance
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.Orbiter 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.
Asset coverageEditorialBroader route and liquidity coverage across supported token and chain pairsToken transfers paid out by a Maker across EVM and non-EVM routes, with a documented minimum of 0.005 ETH per transaction
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Stargate
51#12 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Stargate if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Orbiter Finance's 7/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
Orbiter Finance
61#7 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most — it scores 7/10 to Stargate's 3/10 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
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Stargate
Choose Stargate if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 8/10 against 7/10 for Orbiter Finance (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
Orbiter FinanceLeads
Choose Orbiter Finance if route clarity matters most
Route clarity: 7/10 against 3/10 for Stargate (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 8/10 against 4/10 for Stargate (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
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 86Stargate leads
Stargate8/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Stargate3/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance7/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Orbiter Finance leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance8/10 out of 10
Trust
weight 6.2 of 86Tie
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Orbiter Finance4/10 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
Stargate20/20Orbiter Finance20/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Stargate11.7/30Orbiter Finance15.5/30
Orbiter Finance leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Stargate2.7/10Orbiter Finance2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Stargate3.2/8Orbiter Finance3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Stargate6.9/18Orbiter Finance6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Orbiter Finance unless the term Stargate leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Stargate if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Orbiter Finance's 7/10 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
Orbiter Finance scores 10 points above Stargate, led by route clarity and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Stargate 51 (rank 12 of 18 bridges), Orbiter Finance 61 (rank 7 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
