LI.FI Alternatives: 7 Cross-Chain Routers Compared
Rift Research
Last updated
Cross-chain routers differ less on chain count than on two things nobody publishes side by side: how they charge you, and what an agent can do with them. Most take a 0.05% to 0.3% markup on every trade, whether or not the routing improved your outcome. This page compares seven routers, including LI.FI, on the dimensions that actually decide which one to integrate.
The short version
- Chain count is the least useful comparison. Most routers cover 50+ chains. They differ on execution model, fee structure and asset coverage.
- Most routers charge a markup on every trade. Typically 0.05% to 0.3%, applied whether the router found you a better venue or forwarded you to the obvious one. Two of the seven do not.
- Only two of the seven show the aggregator fee separately in the quote. For the rest, the markup is inside the number you see.
- Execution model determines your slippage exposure. Route-quote aggregators return a price before you sign. Solver-auction networks fill after you deposit.
- Agent interfaces are now a real differentiator. LI.FI leads. Most of the field has nothing.
- Two of these are specialists, not general alternatives. Squid is a Cosmos corridor. Rift is four chains. Neither replaces a breadth-first router; both beat one on their specific route.
The seven routers
| Router | Execution model | Fee model | Coverage | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LI.FI | Route-quote aggregation | Markup on the underlying route. Not shown separately | 58 chains, 27 bridges, 31 exchanges | Widest DEX coverage on EVM. The default breadth-first integration |
| Rango | Aggregator of aggregators | Explicit 0.1%–0.3%, shown separately in the quote | 85+ chains including Cosmos, NEAR, native Bitcoin | Non-EVM and long-tail routes. The only router here that itemises its own fee |
| Bungee (Socket) | Route-quote aggregation, plus Socket intent routing on select routes | Around 0.3%. Not shown separately | 20+ bridges, 30+ chains, EVM-focused | Embedded wallet and dApp integrations. Refuel provisions destination gas |
| Squid | Solver auction (CORAL) over Axelar GMP | Markup on the route | Cosmos and EVM | Cosmos ↔ EVM corridors. Trust rests on Axelar's validator set |
| deBridge | Solver auction (DLN). Fills after deposit | Solver spread | EVM-focused | Major EVM routes where solver competition is deep |
| Relay | Solver-based, relayer fronts liquidity | Solver spread | 85+ networks | Small transfers. Single relayer today; a bonded multi-relayer protocol is stated as forthcoming |
| Rift | Router run in a hardware enclave | No fee. Nothing added on any route | 4 chains: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base | Bitcoin into EVM. Native settlement, no wrapped representation. Smallest coverage on this list |
On the figures. Coverage counts and volume figures are publisher-stated and drift. Each is attributed in Sources and re-checked quarterly.
On security history. This page carries none, for any router. Several have material incidents on record. Including them for some and not others would be selective, and a fee-and-coverage comparison is the wrong place for an incomplete security assessment. Incident history is covered separately in Every Major Bridge Hack and What Broke.
How do the fee models differ?
This is the column that decides what you actually pay, and it is the one most comparisons omit.
Markup on every trade. LI.FI, Bungee, Squid. The router adds a spread to the venue's rate before quoting you. You see the marked-up number, never the underlying one. The markup applies whether or not the routing improved your outcome. Reported industry range is 0.05% to 0.3%.
Explicit and separated. Rango. Same model, but the aggregator fee appears as its own line in the quote. That does not make it cheaper. It makes it checkable, which is the more useful property.
Solver spread. deBridge, Relay. The solver's margin is the fee, priced into the fill. There is no separate router take, but the spread is not itemised either.
No router fee at all. Rift. Nothing is added on any route. You receive the winning venue's rate, less the gas of the additional hop that routing necessarily adds.
Rift also operates a separate execution venue, Rift OTC, which competes for routes like any other solver and charges 0.1% taker when it wins on rate after that fee. That is a venue fee, not a router fee, and the router receives no share of it.
How to check any of them. Quote the same route on the router and directly on the venue it says it is using. The difference, less the gas of the extra hop, is the markup.
Which cross-chain router is best for your route?
| If you need | Use | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Broad EVM coverage as a default | LI.FI | Widest DEX coverage and the most mature developer surface |
| Non-EVM, Cosmos, NEAR, exotic chains | Rango | Widest chain coverage. Wider spread and slower execution is the trade-off |
| Cosmos ↔ EVM specifically | Squid | Purpose-built for that corridor |
| An embedded wallet or dApp widget | Bungee or LI.FI | Both ship mature drop-in widgets |
| Fast fills on small EVM transfers | Relay or deBridge | Solver competition is tightest here |
| Bitcoin into EVM | Rift | Native settlement and no router fee. Only if your route is on its four chains |
| An agent to call it directly | LI.FI | Ships an MCP server, a CLI positioned on token efficiency, an OpenAPI spec and agent skill listings. No other router on this list has an equivalent surface |
Where the others beat Rift
Rift is the newest and by far the smallest router on this list. Several of these are the correct answer over it.
- Chain coverage. Rift supports four chains. Rango and Relay each cover 85+ networks. If your route is not Bitcoin, Ethereum, Arbitrum or Base, Rift is not an option at all.
- Non-EVM assets. Cosmos, NEAR, Solana, TON, Tron. Rango and Squid cover these. Rift does not.
- Track record. Rango has processed roughly $9 billion with no exploit or user-fund loss on record. Rift has no comparable operating history.
- Developer and agent surface. LI.FI is materially ahead: MCP server, CLI, OpenAPI spec, agent skill directories, a purpose-built agent documentation entry point.
- Embedded widget integrations. Bungee and LI.FI both ship mature drop-in widgets.
- Small EVM transfers. A direct solver rail has fewer steps and therefore less gas than routing above it.
Sources
- Aggregator landscape, execution models and markup ranges — Eco, "Best Bridge Aggregators 2026: Cost & Speed": https://eco.com/support/en/articles/14800720-best-bridge-aggregators-2026-cost-speed
- Aggregator selection by route and asset — Eco, "Best Crypto Bridge Aggregator 2026": https://eco.com/support/en/articles/15291263-best-crypto-bridge-aggregator-2026
- Rango fee model, coverage and volume — Eco, "Rango Cross-Chain Swap Aggregator: Deep Dive": https://eco.com/support/en/articles/14800739-rango-cross-chain-swap-aggregator-deep-dive
- Rango operating history — Rango: https://rango.exchange/learn/decentralized-finance/best-cross-chain-bridge
- Socket and Squid fee levels and feature sets — MultiMesh: https://themultimesh.com/blog/best-bridge-aggregators-2026
- Bungee routing, Refuel and chain coverage — Bungee guide: https://bungee-exchange-site.github.io/
- LI.FI coverage and agent surfaces — LI.FI docs: https://docs.li.fi/agents/overview
- Relay settlement architecture — Relay docs: https://docs.relay.link/how-it-works/the-relay-solver
Related: 12 Cross-Chain Swap Venues Compared covers the venues these routers execute against. What Does a Cross-Chain Swap Actually Cost? decomposes where the markup sits in the full cost stack.