aggregator.ink

← All comparisons

Rango vs LI.FI / Jumper

How Rango and LI.FI / Jumper differ on routing, chains and what they’re best at.

RangoLI.FI / Jumper
CategoryBridge aggregatorBridge aggregator
TypeRoute-quoteRoute-quote
How it worksAggregates first-party bridges and DEXes across many ecosystems, returning a route quote before you sign. Strong for non-EVM hops.Aggregates bridges and cross-chain DEXes, returning a quoted output before you sign. LI.FI is the SDK/API; Jumper.exchange is the consumer front-end. Routes EVM, Solana and Bitcoin (via Mayan).
Chains70+ (EVM, Cosmos, Solana, more)30+ (EVM, Solana, Bitcoin)
HighlightVery broad multi-ecosystem$0.94 on $1k ETH→ARB · ~22s
Best forExotic / non-EVM routesThe safe EVM↔EVM default

Rango

  • Huge multi-ecosystem coverage
  • Good for exotic routes
  • Single UI for many bridges
  • Higher cost in benchmarks (~$5.20 on $1k)
  • Route-quote slippage

LI.FI / Jumper

  • Safest, most-integrated bridge aggregator
  • Best benchmark cost on EVM transfers
  • Jumper UI + LI.FI API
  • Route-quote exposes slippage if a route fills slowly
  • Not native to Cosmos

Bottom line

Pick Rango for exotic / non-evm routes; pick LI.FI / Jumper for the safe evm↔evm default.