CCIP
Best forUsers with specific chain-pair needs matched by CCIP's coverage — verify each specific route before committing.
Overall
4.9
Score breakdown
TVL
2.0
Battle-tested
3.0
Chain coverage
10.0
Trust model
5.0
Exploit history
5.0
Momentum
8.0
+−Why these scores
- TVL · 2.0/10
- TVL of $1.57B — thin capital base by peer standards, which affects fee revenue and depth on any single position.
- Battle-tested · 3.0/10
- Launch date not clearly documented in public data.
- Chain coverage · 10.0/10
- Deployed on 21 chains — the widest coverage in the category, meaning users have access from nearly any network.
- Trust model · 5.0/10
- Trust model not documented in our lookup — conservative default. Users should verify the bridge's specific validator design on the protocol's own documentation.
- Exploit history · 5.0/10
- Exploit history not documented in our lookup — conservative default.
- Momentum · 8.0/10
- +6.9% TVL over 7 days — solid inflows.
▲ Pros
- Chain coverage (10/10): Deployed on 21 chains — the widest coverage in the category, meaning users have access from nearly any network
- Momentum (8/10): +6.9% TVL over 7 days — solid inflows
▼ Cons
- TVL (2/10 — major concern): TVL of $1.57B — thin capital base by peer standards, which affects fee revenue and depth on any single position
- Battle-tested (3/10 — major concern): Launch date not clearly documented in public data
- Trust model (5/10): Trust model not documented in our lookup — conservative default
- Exploit history (5/10): Exploit history not documented in our lookup — conservative default
TVL$1.57BCategory rank#10Chains supported217d TVL change+6.95%Trust model—Exploit history—