Squid Review

How Squid scores in bridges

This entry rates Squid in our bridge ranking. Squid is a cross-chain router rather than a single bridge. It settles each request through its own intent auctions (Squid Intents) or through outside networks such as Axelar, Chainflip and Circle's Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP). The basis is desk research of Squid's documentation, its terms and its GitHub organization, checked on November 6, 2026. No swap was made. The category uses five criteria, each marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally, as set out in our ratings methodology.

The overall score is the plain average: (6 + 5 + 2 + 9 + 8) / 5 = 30 / 5 = 6.0.

Four marks changed at this check, and the overall rose from 4.8 to 6.0. Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 8 because the audits page now names every firm and links each report. Trust model disclosure rose from 3 to 5 now that the architecture pages describe the Squid Intents settlement flow. Fee transparency fell from 9 to 6. The fees page and FAQ now say a convenience fee is charged on some frontend routes, without a figure, so the earlier "no fees beyond gas" reading no longer holds. Chain coverage rose from 8 to 9 under the single network-count scale the category now applies to every bridge, on which 25 or more documented networks score 9.

Strongest criteria: audits and chain coverage

Audit disclosure scores 8. Squid's audits page lists six Ackee Blockchain reviews, one by Consensys Diligence, one by Kaden and one by n-Var. Its records table gives each audit's date and the contracts in scope, such as SquidRouter.sol, SquidMulticall.sol and the deposit-service contracts, and the reports are on GitHub. The public repository holds a tenth report, a second n-Var review from 2024. The mark stops short of the top for two reasons: the newest report dates from September 2024, and no audit covers the off-chain TEE system that now settles Intents routes. An audit is not insurance.

Chain coverage scores 9 on a claim of more than 100 chains, backed by a 39-entry table in which some rows, such as "Cosmos - other chains," stand for several networks. The documentation is candid that availability differs by route type. Bitcoin and Solana appear in the table but are marked "coming soon" for Squid Intents, and Squid asks integrators to confirm availability with its team.

Weakest criteria: licence, trust model and fees

Licence & code openness at 2 is a deficiency, not an unchecked item. The 0xsquid GitHub organization publishes audit reports, examples and type definitions, but no repository for the router contracts the audits cover. The SDK and widget repositories carry no licence file. The rubric scores the licence on the code that moves funds, and none is published.

Trust model disclosure at 5 credits a clear description of how an Intents trade settles. Funds are released to the market maker only after a TEE has verified the fill, and a failed trade is refunded on the source chain within about 15 minutes. What is missing is the part the rubric values most: who operates the TEEs, what happens if the enclave or its signing key fails, and how users are protected against an incorrect release. Routes that use Axelar, Chainflip, CCTP or LayerZero inherit those networks' trust models. Squid does not state which applies to a given swap, and that is not visible from the docs.

Fee transparency at 6 reflects a clear zero with an unpriced exception. Squid states that it charges no protocol fee and that CCTP legs carry no fee, and gas is itemized by chain type. But the convenience fee on its own frontend has no published rate or route list. Integrator fees are elected by each app, and Squid takes an unstated portion of them. The same swap can cost different amounts in different wallets, and the figure to check is the service fee shown before signing.

What the score does not cover

• Security of the outside networks a route uses. Each has its own entry in this ranking.
• Past incidents. Squid's FAQ says it has never suffered a breach, and that is Squid's own statement. Under the category rule, we do not score incidents a protocol has not documented itself.
• Execution quality, solver competition or the speed and price claims on Squid's site, which are the company's figures.
• The QUID token, which is not needed to swap.

Our guide to how bridges work and why they are risky covers the failure modes that apply to routers and the networks beneath them.

Squid vs deBridge and Axelar

On current category marks, Axelar is first of nine at 8.6, deBridge fourth at 7.8 and Squid eighth at 6.0. deBridge is the closest intent-based peer. It publishes a flat per-chain fee plus 4 basis points and scores 9 on fees to Squid's 6, and it also leads on audits (9 to 8), trust model (6 to 5) and licence (8 to 2). Squid is ahead only on chain coverage, 9 to 7. Axelar, one of the networks Squid routes through, leads Squid on trust model, licence and audits, and the two are level on chain coverage at 9. Squid is one point ahead only on fees, 6 to 5.

Who this rating suits

The score helps a reader deciding whether to route a swap through Squid, often inside a wallet that has integrated it, rather than use a single bridge directly. Squid's audit record and breadth are documented. Its fee on any given route, its core contract licence and its TEE failure model are not. The rating is not a recommendation. For a large transfer, check the quoted service fee and which settlement network the route uses before signing.