Celer cBridge Review

Celer cBridge scores 8.4 out of 10 in our bridge ratings, up from 6.2 and third of nine. Most of the rise comes from pages the July review could not find. Celer's audit page now lists five linked reports from three named firms, its security page states the stake threshold at which funds would be at risk, and its homepage gives a chain count. One mark fell: Celer's own documents now give two different ceilings for the protocol fee.

This assessment is desk research from the cBridge documentation, Celer's homepage, its public gateway API and its contract repository, rechecked on 6 November 2026. We did not bridge funds through cBridge.

How Celer cBridge scores in bridges

The bridges category uses five criteria, each worth 20%. Four marks moved and one held.

Arithmetic: (7 + 9 + 10 + 9 + 7) / 5 = 42 / 5 = 8.4.

What changed: Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 7 after cBridge's audit reports page was reached and found to link five reports from three named firms. Chain coverage rose from 3 to 9 because Celer's homepage now states "40+" chains, consistent with the 68 entries in its gateway API. Trust model disclosure rose from 8 to 9 on the strength of the cBridge security page. Fee transparency fell from 8 to 7 because the full documentation gives a 0% to 0.5% protocol fee range while the FAQ still says 0% to 2%.

Strongest criteria: licence, trust model and coverage

Licence & code openness (10)

The sgn-v2-contracts repository, which also holds the audit files, carries the GNU General Public License v3.0. That is a recognized open-source licence with no change date or use restriction.

Trust model disclosure (9)

Transfers are validated by the State Guardian Network (SGN), a proof-of-stake chain where CELR holders act as validators or delegators. The security page states the worst case directly: funds are at risk only if validators holding more than two-thirds of staked value behave maliciously, and a smaller dishonest group would be slashed. cBridge also runs a hybrid model by transfer size. Smaller transfers go through without delay, while larger ones sit in a "quarantine zone" during which an app guardian can double-check them. The page also cites rate limits on bridging volume.

The mark stops at 9 because the page leaves the operating details open: it gives no delay duration, no amount at which the delayed path applies, no rate-limit values and no list of who runs guardians for cBridge.

Chain coverage (9)

Celer's homepage says cBridge connects "40+ blockchains and layer-2 rollups." The public gateway API returned 68 chain entries on 1 November 2026, including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, BNB Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, Sui and Aptos. Not every entry has active routes for every token, so the stated figure is treated as Celer's claim. That breadth meets the standard the category applies to Across's 26+ and Axelar's 80+.

Weaker criteria: audits and fees

Audit disclosure (7)

The audit reports page links five PDFs in the contracts repository: CertiK on the liquidity bridge, PeckShield and SlowMist each on both the liquidity bridge and the canonical (pegged-token) bridge. The firms are named and the files can be opened. Three things keep the mark at 7: no report is dated on the page, the archive is small, and the page lists the validator-node audit as "In progress," so the SGN node software has no published audit. Celer's security page also cites a $2 million bug bounty on Immunefi, which is noted but not counted as an audit.

Fee transparency (7)

Celer publishes a formula: bridge fee = base fee + protocol fee. The base fee is paid in the transferred token and covers destination-chain gas. The protocol fee is a percentage that depends on the chains and the amount. In the pool-based model, earnings are split 50% to SGN stakers and 50% to the liquidity providers used.

The problem is the ceiling. The FAQ says the protocol fee "ranges from 0% to 2%." The fee section of the full documentation says it "ranges from 0% to 0.5% of the total transfer amount." A published worst case is what earned this criterion its high mark, and two conflicting worst cases weaken it. Until Celer reconciles the pages, rely on the quote the app shows before you sign. For how percentage fees and gas combine, see our guide to trading fees, spreads and gas.

What the score does not cover

• Operator identity. Celer's pages name no legal entity or team. The bridge criteria do not score this, but it is a real limit on accountability.
• Speed and actual cost. Celer says most transfers take 5 to 20 minutes; we did not measure them.
• Pegged-token and pool risk. In the lock-and-mint model the pegged token is only as sound as the vault; in the pool model, liquidity providers absorb imbalances. Neither is scored.
• Incident history. Not scored.

Celer cBridge vs Axelar and Across

On current category marks, Axelar and Wormhole share the lead at 8.6, Celer cBridge is third of nine at 8.4, and Across is sixth at 7.2. Celer and Axelar both take 10 for an open-source licence and 9 for chain coverage. Celer is ahead of Axelar on fees (7 against 5) and level on trust model disclosure, but Axelar's dated, multi-firm archive of 61 reports outscores Celer's five undated ones (10 against 7). Against Across, Celer gains on licence and fees and loses on trust model and audits by one point each.

Who it suits

cBridge's marks favor users who want a published percentage range for the fee and open-source contracts, and who are comfortable with a validator-set model whose failure condition is stated. Before larger transfers, check the in-app quote and note that larger amounts may be delayed. For the general risks of bridging, read how blockchain bridges work and why they are risky. This rating measures disclosure, not safety.