Rift vs. Relay
Rift Research
Last updated
TLDR: Rift is an aggregator with best price execution. It includes Relay and all other supported venues in its routes. Rift adds 0 fee on the route, so you are guaranteed at least as good a rate as going to Relay directly. If Relay has the best route, Rift gives you that route with no added fee.
Relay is an intent-based relayer network optimised for speed on small-to-mid transfers across many networks. Rift is an aggregator on Bitcoin, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Hyperliquid, RobinhoodChain, Tempo, XLayer, Ink and Pharos.
Short version
| Dimension | Rift | Relay |
|---|---|---|
| Role | Aggregator | Intent + relayer network |
| Fee | Zero added fee on every route | Solver/relayer spread + small platform components |
| Chains | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Hyperliquid, RobinhoodChain, Tempo, XLayer, Ink and Pharos | 85+ networks |
| Speed focus | Venue-dependent | Optimised for fast small transfers |
| Trust model | TEE | Relayer fronts liquidity (single relayer today; bonded network planned) |
| Best for | Best price execution on supported chains | Fast transfers across many networks |
Where each wins
Relay wins when:
- Speed on small transfers matters most
- You need networks outside Rift’s supported set
- You want a pure intent/relayer experience
Rift wins when:
- Your route is on Rift’s supported chains
- You want best price execution across multiple venues, including Relay, with zero added fee
Key differences
Relay competes as a fill network. A relayer fronts the destination asset.
Rift is an aggregator. It includes Relay in its venue set. When Relay wins, Rift routes through Relay and you receive that rate with no added fee.
When to use which
- Use Relay for fast, small transfers across many networks.
- Use Rift for routes on its supported chains when you want best price execution at zero added fee.