LI.FI vs NEAR Intents 2026: 4 live benchmarks compared

Name: LI.FI vs NEAR Intents OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

OpenChainBench

LI.FI vs NEAR Intents

LI.FI leads on 3 of 4 shared benchmarks, NEAR Intents on 1. LI.FI wins on Fastest cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking (891 ms vs 3.13 s), Fastest on-chain bridge execution (10.18 s vs 33.25 s), Fastest Solana cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking (829 ms vs 3.50 s). NEAR Intents wins on Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional (0.045% vs 0.36%). Data as of 2026-11-02 UTC.

Read methodology Last measured Mon, 02 Nov 2026 02:49:03 UTCWindow: rolling 24h5 shared benchmarks, 4 measured on both sides

LI.FI

Cross-chain bridge and DEX aggregator. Routes swaps across bridges and liquidity sources via a single API, with EVM and Solana support.

NEAR Intents

Cross-chain intent layer from NEAR Protocol. The 1Click API runs a solver auction bus, signed quotes are settled by the winning market maker. Quote latency reflects bid arrival, not route search across LPs.

Side by side measurements

Fastest cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking

Bridges

LI.FI

Leads

891 ms

p99: 4.46 s
rank: #6
samples: 3,210

NEAR Intents

Trails

3.13 s

p99: 4.96 s
rank: #8
samples: 2,881

Per chain · per region

Chain	Provider	EU-West	Aggregate
Sol to Base	LI.FI	884 ms	884 ms
Sol to Base	NEAR Intents	3.50 s	3.50 s
Base to Arb	LI.FI	1.25 s	1.25 s
Base to Arb	NEAR Intents	3.50 s	3.50 s
Arb to Sol	LI.FI	1.17 s	1.17 s
Arb to Sol	NEAR Intents	3.50 s	3.50 s
Arb to HyperCore	LI.FI	759 ms	759 ms
Arb to HyperCore	NEAR Intents	43 ms	43 ms

Quote latency

LI.FIn/aNEAR Intentsn/a

Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional

Bridges

LI.FI

Trails

0.36 %

p99: 0.73%
rank: #7
samples: 46,080

NEAR Intents

Leads

0.045 %

p99: 0.049%
rank: #3
samples: 25,920

Per chain

Chain	LI.FI	NEAR Intents
Sol to Base	0.28%	0.016%
Base to Arb	0.28%	0.013%
Arb to Sol	0.37%	0.020%
Arb to HyperCore	0.52%	0.11%

Effective fee

LI.FIn/aNEAR Intentsn/a

Fastest on-chain bridge execution: real settlement latency, Mobula vs Relay vs LI.FI vs Near Intents

Bridges

Provider	Execution latency	Slippage vs quote	All-in gas we paid
LI.FIprovisional	10.18 s	-	$0.00898
NEAR Intentsprovisional	33.25 s	$0.00630	$0.0571

View

LI.FIn/aNEAR Intentsn/a

Bridge slippage vs quote: what actually settles versus what was quoted

Bridges

Provider	All-in gas we paid
LI.FIprovisional	$0.00898
NEAR Intentsprovisional	$0.0571

All-in gas we paid

LI.FIn/aNEAR Intentsn/a

Fastest Solana cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking

Bridges

LI.FI

Leads

829 ms

p99: 4.52 s
rank: #5
samples: 2,037

NEAR Intents

Trails

3.50 s

p99: 4.97 s
rank: #6
samples: 1,152

Per chain · per region

Chain	Provider	EU-West	Aggregate
SOL to Base	LI.FI	884 ms	884 ms
SOL to Base	NEAR Intents	3.50 s	3.50 s
SOL to Arbitrum	LI.FI	857 ms	857 ms
SOL to Arbitrum	NEAR Intents	3.50 s	3.50 s

Quote latency

LI.FIn/aNEAR Intentsn/a

Frequently asked questions

LI.FI vs NEAR Intents: which one is better?

LI.FI and NEAR Intents are compared on 5 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. LI.FI leads on Fastest cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking. NEAR Intents leads on Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is faster, LI.FI or NEAR Intents?

On the Fastest cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking benchmark, LI.FI leads at 891 ms versus NEAR Intents at 3.13 s. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

Which is cheaper, LI.FI or NEAR Intents?

On the Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional benchmark, NEAR Intents leads at 0.045% versus LI.FI at 0.36%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the LI.FI vs NEAR Intents comparison measured?

Every benchmark on this page uses the same open methodology, published at https://openchainbench.com/methodology. Data is CC-BY-4.0. Measurement harnesses are MIT-licensed.

Related comparisons

LI.FI vs Mobula

How this pair was selected

Auto-generated pairs require: both providers in the same benchmark for seven consecutive days, at least 1000 samples per provider, observable third-party search demand, and a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. Editorially curated pairs (like this one) may publish early when search demand is high and data is accruing; panels with fewer than 100 samples are shown as provisional. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo.