Stargate vs Squid Router Squid Router leads by 11 points.
Squid Router scores 11 points above Stargate, led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Stargate ranks #12 and Squid Router #4 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Stargate51
vs
Squid Router62
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #12 and #4 of 18
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6251+11.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Squid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge feesStargateScore 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
FactStargateSquid Router
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.Squid 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.
Asset coverageEditorialBroader route and liquidity coverage across supported token and chain pairsCross-asset swap and bridge across all Axelar-connected chains
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Stargate
51#12 of 18
Pick it when
Stargate leads on no published criterion; its edge is availability (20 vs 14 points). Pick it if that term is what you are buying.
Strength
Route coverage — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
Squid Router
62#4 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Squid Router if route coverage matters most — it scores 10/10 to Stargate's 8/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 10/10
Tradeoff
Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Stargate
Stargate leads Squid Router on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
Squid RouterLeads
Choose Squid Router if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 10/10 against 8/10 for Stargate (weight 28)
Trust: 5/10 against 4/10 for Stargate (weight 26)
Route clarity: 5/10 against 3/10 for Stargate (weight 24)
Squid RouterScore 62Axelar-powered cross-chain swap and bridge aggregatorStrength: Route coverage — 10/10Watch-out: Slippage on the swap leg adds to bridge fees
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 2 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Squid Router leads
Stargate8/10 out of 10
Squid Router10/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Squid Router leads
Stargate3/10 out of 10
Squid Router5/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 3 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Squid Router leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Squid Router7/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Squid Router leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Squid Router5/10 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
Stargate20/20Squid Router14/20
Stargate leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Stargate11.7/30Squid Router16.4/30
Squid Router leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Stargate2.7/10Squid Router2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Stargate3.2/8Squid Router3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Stargate6.9/18Squid Router12.5/18
Squid Router leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Squid Router unless the term Stargate leads on is the one you are buying.
Stargate leads on no published criterion; its edge is availability (20 vs 14 points). Pick it if that term is what you are buying.
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
Squid Router scores 11 points above Stargate, led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Stargate 51 (rank 12 of 18 bridges), Squid Router 62 (rank 4 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
