Orbiter vs Hop: Retail Transfers

Ultra-low, predictable fees: Uses native gas tokens for bridging, avoiding protocol fees. Transfers often cost < $1 on major routes (e.g., Ethereum to zkSync). Finality in ~1 minute by leveraging fast L2s as intermediaries. This matters for users making frequent, small-value transfers where cost is the primary constraint.

Manual route assembly: Users must often bridge through a third chain (e.g., Goerli to zkSync via Arbitrum), increasing points of failure. No unified liquidity: Relies on scattered maker/keeper nodes, which can lead to failed transactions if liquidity is imbalanced. This matters for users who prioritize a simple, one-click experience with guaranteed liquidity.

Canonical token bridging: Mints hTokens (e.g., hETH) on the source chain and burns them on the destination, providing a unified, audited standard. Bonded liquidity pools ensure transfers succeed if the route is offered. One-click UX in major wallets like MetaMask. This matters for retail users seeking a reliable, no-surprises bridging experience.

Protocol + LP fees: Users pay a small protocol fee (e.g., 2-5 bps) on top of gas and liquidity provider fees, making it ~$5-15 for an ETH transfer. Speed depends on destination chain finality: ~15-30 minutes for Ethereum L1 withdrawals. This matters for cost-sensitive users or those needing sub-5-minute transfers between L2s.

Ultra-low fees and instant finality: Uses a network of dedicated market makers for direct transfers, avoiding AMM liquidity pools. This results in fees often under $1 and transaction times under 1 minute on major routes. This matters for users making frequent, small-value transfers where gas costs are a primary concern.

Native ETH/stablecoins only: Primarily facilitates transfers of native ETH, WETH, USDC, and USDT. Lacks support for a broad range of ERC-20 tokens. This matters for users needing to bridge diverse assets like AAVE, UNI, or niche altcoins, forcing them to use another bridge or swap first.

Broad ERC-20 support via canonical bridges: Integrates with native bridges (like Arbitrum Bridge, Optimism Gateway) to transfer a wide array of assets, including DAI, USDT, WBTC, and many governance tokens. This matters for DeFi users who need to move their entire portfolio, not just base-layer assets.

Higher fees and slower exits: Relies on AMM bonding curves and challenge periods for some chains, leading to higher variable fees (often $5-$15+) and potential 7-day withdrawal delays for optimistic rollups in worst-case scenarios. This matters for users prioritizing absolute lowest cost and instant guaranteed finality.

Optimistic rollup-native bridging: Uses canonical bridges for fast withdrawals (minutes vs. days). This matters for users who need funds available quickly on L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism without waiting for challenge periods.

Bonder-based liquidity model: Relies on professional market makers (bonders) to provide instant liquidity, reducing the TVL required per route. This matters for supporting a wide array of assets (USDC, DAI, MATIC) without massive native liquidity pools.

Lower fees for simple transfers: Often cheaper for direct ETH/stablecoin transfers between major rollups due to a maker-taker fee model and focus on core routes. This matters for cost-sensitive retail users moving between Arbitrum, zkSync, and Base.

Specialized rollup connector: Purpose-built for EVM rollup-to-rollup transfers, avoiding the complexity of general message passing. This matters for users who want a straightforward, no-frills bridge experience with fewer steps and supported token decisions.