Wormhole vs Everclear (formerly Connext) Wormhole leads by 9 points.
Wormhole scores 9 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Wormhole ranks #14 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.
Wormhole50
vs
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #14 and #17 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.2
Reproduced gap+28.1
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5041+9.0
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.
WormholeScore 50Leading cross-chain messaging protocol connecting 30+ networksStrength: Route coverage — 7/10Watch-out: Higher fees on some routes than specialized bridgesEverclear (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
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactWormholeEverclear (formerly Connext)
PricingSnapshotWormhole Connect docs, "Routes" (wormhole.com/docs/ai/pages/products-connect-concepts-routes.md, fetched 30 September 2026): automatic routes deliver in one user transaction "for a small fee" - "Trustless relayers can execute the second transaction on the user's behalf, so the user only needs to perform one transaction on the origin chain to have the tokens delivered to the destination automatically - for a small fee." - while manual routes need a second, destination-chain transaction whose gas the user pays. No relayer fee amount is published on that page, so the dollar range the previous note carried is not repeated. Portal Bridge (portalbridge.com), Wormhole's consumer front end, renders client-side, so no live Portal quote was read.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 coverageEditorialMajor assets across all connected chainsCross-chain liquidity netting for integrated dapps
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Wormhole
50#14 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Wormhole if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Everclear (formerly Connext)'s 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 7/10
Tradeoff
Higher fees on some routes than specialized bridges
EV
Everclear (formerly Connext)
41#17 of 18
Pick it when
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Wormhole 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?
WormholeLeads
Choose Wormhole if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 3/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 28)
Trust: 7/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 26)
Route clarity: 5/10 against 2/10 for Everclear (formerly Connext) (weight 24)
WormholeScore 50Leading cross-chain messaging protocol connecting 30+ networksStrength: Route coverage — 7/10Watch-out: Higher fees on some routes than specialized bridges
EVEverclear (formerly Connext)
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Wormhole 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 4 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Wormhole leads
Wormhole7/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Wormhole leads
Wormhole5/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)2/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
weight 5.3 of 86Tie
Wormhole4/10 out of 10
Everclear (formerly Connext)4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 5 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Wormhole leads
Wormhole7/10 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
Wormhole14/20Everclear (formerly Connext)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Wormhole14.1/30Everclear (formerly Connext)6.5/30
Wormhole leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Wormhole2.7/10Everclear (formerly Connext)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Wormhole6.4/8Everclear (formerly Connext)3.2/8
Wormhole leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Wormhole6.9/18Everclear (formerly Connext)6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Wormhole unless the term Everclear (formerly Connext) leads on is the one you are buying.
Everclear (formerly Connext) leads Wormhole 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
Wormhole scores 9 points above Everclear (formerly Connext), led by route coverage, trust, and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Wormhole 50 (rank 14 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
