Fastest on-chain bridge execution: real settlement latency, Mobula vs Relay vs LI.FI
Real broadcast-to-funds-received latency, success rate and realized fees for executed bridge transactions on a self-conserving USDC triangle (Solana, Base, Arbitrum), at $3 and $30, measured from EU-West.
TL;DR. As of , Relay posts the lowest execution latency at 5.46 s (p50, 24h) on Fastest on-chain bridge execution: real settlement latency, Mobula vs Relay vs LI.FI. Source: OpenChainBench, https://openchainbench.com/benchmarks/bridge-execution-latency.
Every other bridge comparison on the internet measures quotes. This one measures the transaction. We run a self-conserving USDC triangle (Solana to Base to Arbitrum and back) with real capital, broadcasting real transfers through Mobula, Relay and LI.FI, and we time each one from broadcast to the moment the funds actually land on the destination chain. Quotes are a promise; settlement is the truth, and the gap between them is where slippage, failed fills and refunds live. This benchmark reports the real broadcast-to-settlement latency, the success rate (fills versus reverts and refunds) and the realized fee (amount sent minus amount received) for two ticket sizes, $3 and $30, per corridor, measured from EU-West. Inventory is conserved across the cycle, so only fees burn.
Methodology
We execute real cross-chain transfers on a conserving USDC triangle (Solana to Base, Base to Arbitrum, Arbitrum to Solana) through Mobula, Relay and LI.FI, at $3 and $30. For each executed transaction we record the on-chain execution latency (broadcast to funds received), the end-to-end latency (quote to funds received), the realized fee, and whether it settled, reverted or was refunded. p50, p90 and p99 latency are derived over a rolling 24-hour window; success rate is fills over fills plus reverts and refunds. Reverted and refunded transactions are excluded from the latency distribution and counted against the success rate.
Frequently asked
How is this different from the bridge quote and bridge fee benchmarks?
Those measure the API response: how fast a quote comes back and what it claims the cost will be. This benchmark broadcasts and settles a real transaction, then measures how long the funds actually took to arrive and what the realized cost was. A provider can quote fast and cheap yet settle slowly or fail, and only an execution benchmark surfaces that.
What does the triangle conserve, and why does it matter?
The route returns every unit of capital to its origin over a full cycle (Solana to Base to Arbitrum to Solana), so the loop can run indefinitely on a fixed float with only fees burning. That is what makes continuous real execution affordable to benchmark.
Why only $3 and $30?
The goal is settlement reliability and latency, which do not require large notionals. Small tickets keep the standing capital and the burned fees low while still exercising the full broadcast, settle and accounting path on every provider.
How is the success rate computed?
Settled transactions divided by settled plus reverted and refunded. A transaction that never broadcast (a pre-flight or quote failure) is not counted against a provider; a broadcast that reverts or is refunded is.
Where does this run from?
EU-West. The execution node holds a single wallet and signs every broadcast, so running a second origin would race the same inventory. The latency therefore reflects an EU-West vantage; the quote-latency benchmark on this site covers multi-region read latency separately.
Source code github.com/ChainBench/OpenChainBench/tree/main/harnesses/bridge-monitor