NEAR Intents vs Squid Router

Split decision: NEAR Intents leads on Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional (0.037% vs 0.048%); Squid Router leads on Fastest cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking (292 ms vs 3.51 s).

Read methodology Last measured Window: rolling 24h2 shared benchmarks
NEAR Intents logo
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.

Squid Router logo
Squid Router

Cross-chain swap and liquidity routing built on Axelar. The Squid Router API sources routes across EVM chains via Axelar GMP, covering swaps and bridges in a single call.

Side by side measurements

Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional

Bridges

NEAR Intents

Leads

0.037 %

p99
0.040%
rank
#3
samples
12,287

Squid Router

Trails

0.048 %

p99
0.050%
rank
#4
samples
2,877

Per chain · per region

ChainProviderEU-WestAggregate
Base to ArbNEAR Intents0.0095%0.0095%
Squid Router0.048%0.048%

Frequently asked questions

NEAR Intents vs Squid Router: which one is better?

NEAR Intents and Squid Router are compared on 2 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. NEAR Intents leads on Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional. Squid Router leads on Fastest cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is cheaper, NEAR Intents or Squid Router?

On the Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional benchmark, NEAR Intents leads at 0.037% versus Squid Router at 0.048%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

Which is faster, NEAR Intents or Squid Router?

On the Fastest cross-chain bridge quote API, live ms ranking benchmark, Squid Router leads at 292 ms versus NEAR Intents at 3.51 s. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the NEAR Intents vs Squid Router 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.

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.

Live data refreshes via ISR within 60 seconds of a new run. Sources are the same Prometheus queries surfaced on the parent benchmark pages.