The 9 Interoperability/Bridges coins we track were worth $1.06 billion on 5 November 2026.
Top 5 Interoperability/Bridges coins by market cap
LayerZeroZRO: $743 million smart contract platform, layer 0 (L0)
WormholeW: $75 million interoperability, governance
ZetaChainZETA: $61 million smart contract platform, layer 1 (L1)
Threshold NetworkT: $52 million decentralized finance (DeFi), BTCfi protocol
AxelarAXL: $51 million infrastructure, interoperability
Market cap is price times coins in circulation, from CoinGecko. The small words beside each coin are CoinGecko's own tags. A size ranking, not a pick.
What is Interoperability/Bridges crypto?
Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins are the coins CoinGecko tags as Canonical Bridge or Cross-chain Communication. Each coin sits in one theme only: the first, most specific one its tags match. We track 9 Interoperability/Bridges coins, 8 of them rated below.
Bottom line
LayerZero ranks first for research priority in Interoperability/Bridges crypto at 66.1/100, and its native activity proof is incomplete. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is +5.7% on 50% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 0 of the 8 assets here carry enough native evidence to move past a price-led label.
These Interoperability/Bridges coins are part of the cryptocurrency universe this site tracks daily: the top 1,000 coins by market cap when the list was built, priced from exchange closes where we have a price we trust, and matched to protocol fees and revenue where a protocol publishes them.
The theme itself · before any single company
How has Interoperability/Bridges moved against Bitcoin?
The line below covers up to 5 years and opens on the 5Y view; the buttons cut it shorter. Over the most recent two of them this theme is 55% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 14% on average over the last four reported quarters. It has been ahead of Bitcoin on a rolling three-month view for 7 weeks running.
FADING · −1 in 4w·Price down, no fundamental support2 of 8 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months
Ahead of Bitcoin for 7 weeks running; 3/8 >200d (−3); 2 of 8 ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months (1 fewer than four weeks earlier).
Interoperability/Bridges, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Interoperability/Bridges, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Interoperability/Bridges, equal-weighted, based at 200Bitcoin, same base, same starttrailing 12-month protocol revenue risingfalling
Both lines start at 200 in the same week, so the gap between them tells the story: the theme line is an equal-weighted index of its 8 coins. The bars underneath are trailing 12-month protocol revenue, one bar per reported quarter, each member set to 100 at the start and the theme taking the middle value, so a price line pulling away from flat bars means the market is paying more for the same earnings. A bar turns red when that figure is lower than the quarter before. The rules are fixed and the same everywhere on this site: ahead by 5% or more over three months, or behind by 20% or more over a year while protocol revenue grew 20% or more. Hover or tap any point to read both values and the gap.
BTC LED market context
Interoperability/Bridges vs Bitcoin: Relative Strength & Breadth
Interoperability/Bridges crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 57.9% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is +5.7%. 4 of 8 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. LayerZero leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +113.1%. Price readings are as of 2026-10-30.
+5.7%13 weeks vs Bitcoin
-58%52 weeks vs Bitcoin
4 of 8above their 200-day average
ZROfurthest ahead of Bitcoin · +113%
Assets
8
canonical functional membership
Activity-covered
0/8
enough native evidence
Top score
66.1/100
LayerZero
Calendar quarters
20
complete; missing stays missing
Global asset selection · top 20 shown
00 · exact additive research priority
4-Factor Crypto Evidence Score
A within-theme research-priority score for the 8 assets in Interoperability/Bridges, out of 100. The four displayed point contributions add exactly to the total, and the market regime changes the action label, never the arithmetic. LayerZero is highest at 66.1/100 on 43% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.
LayerZero leads the current research queue at 66.1/100 with 43% evidence.
0 of 8 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a price-led label.
1 of the 9 Interoperability/Bridges coins is not rated this week: 1 carries a hole longer than 30 days inside the 95-day window. They are listed in full below the ranking.
Missing native metrics are not scored as zero and are not silently reweighted. They pull only the affected factor toward neutral and lower its visible evidence percentage. An asset with nothing measurable at all is not scored at 50 either: it is listed as not rated.
1. LayerZero · ZRO
66.1/100 · Price-led, little network data · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 30.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.6 = 66.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +113 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +10.5 pts · above its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
10.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $14.9M · price swings: 125.8% a year
100% evidence
2. Caldera · ERA
55.1/100 · Price-led, little network data · 22% evidence
Exact sum: 21.0 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 9.1 = 55.1
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): — · vs its theme (30 days): — · above its 200-day average
20% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
9.1/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $5.1M · price swings: 148% a year
100% evidence
3. Wormhole · W
54.6/100 · Price-led, little network data · 71% evidence
Exact sum: 24.9 + 13.1 + 6.9 + 9.7 = 54.6
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +24.1 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −1 pts · above its 200-day average
100% evidence
13.1/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
17% evidence
6.9/20Value capture
Fee yield 0.57% · revenue yield 0%
81% evidence
9.7/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $63.3M · price swings: 145.7% a year
100% evidence
4. Threshold Network · T
48.6/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 15.3 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 8.3 = 48.6
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +12.1 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −5.9 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
8.3/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $2.5M · price swings: 92.6% a year
100% evidence
5. Hyperlane · HYPER
47.0/100 · Thinly traded · 59% evidence
Exact sum: 9.2 + 15.0 + 18.1 + 4.7 = 47.0
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −16.9 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −2.6 pts · below its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
18.1/20Value capture
Fee yield 1.92% · revenue yield 1.92%
81% evidence
4.7/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $497.3K · price swings: 70.4% a year
100% evidence
6. Axelar · AXL
46.4/100 · Thinly traded · 43% evidence
Exact sum: 16.8 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 4.6 = 46.4
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +1.1 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +1 pts · above its 200-day average
80% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
4.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $614.7K · price swings: 100.2% a year
100% evidence
7. ZetaChain · ZETA
38.2/100 · Thinly traded · 70% evidence
Exact sum: 14.3 + 10.0 + 5.0 + 8.9 = 38.2
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): +11 pts · vs its theme (30 days): −15.2 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
10.0/30Usage growth
Fees -95.2% · revenue — · users —
33% evidence
5.0/20Value capture
Fee yield 0% · revenue yield —
50% evidence
8.9/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $5.0M · price swings: 52.6% a year
100% evidence
8. ICON · ICX
35.5/100 · Thinly traded · 50% evidence
Exact sum: 7.9 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 2.6 = 35.5
What it means: Mostly a price reading: less than half of this score rests on the network's own use (fees, users, deposits), so it says little about the project itself yet.
vs Bitcoin (90 days): −73.9 pts · vs its theme (30 days): +2.6 pts · below its 200-day average
100% evidence
15.0/30Usage growth
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
2.6/15Liquidity & risk
Typical daily trading: $889.8K · price swings: 1179.6% a year
100% evidence
Showing 5 of 8 ranked assets
01 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which projects are generating the most network fees?
Wormhole leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $430.2K, 13% ahead of Hyperlane. The one asset with comparable change data is not growing. Coverage is 3 of the 8 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderWormhole · $430.2K
Gap13% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage3 of 8 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: fee growth turns negative across two complete calendar quarters or fee coverage falls below the stated threshold.
Trailing 12-month fees is the sum of the latest four complete calendar quarters. Growth compares that sum with the prior four-quarter sum.
Trailing 12-month feestop 3
1Wormhole W$430.2K
2Hyperlane HYPER$380.0K
3ZetaChain ZETA$3.0K
Fee growthonly one with data
1ZetaChain ZETA-95%
Network fees · asset comparison
3 of 8 coins report it · 1 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month fees
Fee growth
LayerZero ZRO
—
—
Caldera ERA
—
—
Wormhole W
$43.4K
—
Threshold Network T
—
—
Hyperlane HYPER
$57.6K
—
Axelar AXL
—
—
ZetaChain ZETA
$185
-95%
ICON ICX
—
—
02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?
Hyperlane leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $380K. Coverage is 2 of the 8 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderHyperlane · $380K
GapNot comparable
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage2 of 8 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: revenue growth turns negative or the revenue-to-fees take rate falls for two complete calendar quarters.
Trailing 12-month revenue is the sum of the latest four complete calendar quarters. Growth compares that sum with the prior four-quarter sum.
Trailing 12-month revenuetop 2
1Hyperlane HYPER$380.0K
2Wormhole W$0
Revenue growth
—Not enough comparable data—
Protocol revenue · asset comparison
2 of 8 coins report it · 0 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month revenue
Revenue growth
LayerZero ZRO
—
—
Caldera ERA
—
—
Wormhole W
$0
—
Threshold Network T
—
—
Hyperlane HYPER
$57.6K
—
Axelar AXL
—
—
ZetaChain ZETA
—
—
ICON ICX
—
—
03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Where is capital actually committed on-chain?
Wormhole leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $1.8B, 2070% ahead of Hyperlane. The one asset with comparable change data is not growing. Coverage is 2 of the 8 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderWormhole · $1.8B
Gap2070% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage2 of 8 assets
Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture.
This conclusion weakens if: TVL rises while fees and users fall; that pattern can be incentive-funded mercenary liquidity.
Quarter-end TVL uses protocol TVL first for protocol assets and exact-ID chain TVL for chain assets or where protocol TVL is unavailable. A blank is unavailable, not zero. Growth compares with the same complete quarter one year earlier.
Quarter-end TVLtop 2
1Wormhole W$1.8B
2Hyperlane HYPER$82.9M
TVL growthonly one with data
1Wormhole W-36%
Total value locked · asset comparison
2 of 8 coins report it · 1 with a comparable change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Quarter-end TVL
TVL growth
LayerZero ZRO
—
—
Caldera ERA
—
—
Wormhole W
$1.8B
-36%
Threshold Network T
—
—
Hyperlane HYPER
$82.9M
—
Axelar AXL
—
—
ZetaChain ZETA
—
—
ICON ICX
—
—
04 · let price answer last
Which assets lead on price and relative strength?
LayerZero leads the Interoperability/Bridges tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +113% over 90 days. 4 of 8 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. Price shows what happened; BTC-relative strength shows whether the asset beat crypto’s opportunity-cost benchmark. Both lines run through 2026-10-30.
Complete set · no silent drops
Which assets are in Interoperability/Bridges?
8 of the 9 coins assigned to Interoperability/Bridges are rated and ranked below, and the other 1 is listed under it with the reason it is not rated: price-only names that publish no protocol activity included. Each asset has exactly one canonical functional theme, chosen by a specific-to-general first match on its categories.
1 of the 9 Interoperability/Bridges coins is not rated this week: 1 carries a hole longer than 30 days inside the 95-day window. Each one stays on this page with its reason instead of being scored at the midpoint of a range nothing measured.
Coin
Market cap
Reason
Detail
Across Protocol ACX
$31.5M
Hole in the price history
Its price history has a 36-day hole inside the 95-day window these readings are measured over.
Methodology · boundaries make the answer useful
What can make this comparison misleading?
This Interoperability/Bridges comparison names 5 ways its own evidence can mislead, all listed below. The largest is that crypto network activity is not company earnings: protocol revenue does not automatically accrue to token holders. Coverage is also uneven: 0 of 8 assets carry enough native evidence to rank on more than price.
Crypto network activity is not company earnings. Protocol revenue does not automatically accrue to token holders.
Market-cap values are a dated universe snapshot, not point-in-time historical supply data.
Current category labels are applied to historical prices; this creates survivorship and taxonomy hindsight.
Funding rates, open interest, liquidations, exchange flows, unlock schedules, historical circulating supply and developer activity are not held and are not inferred.
Equal weighting is used for sector history because true historical market-cap weights are unavailable.
Price and technicalsThrough 2026-10-30. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.
Protocol activityThrough 2026-10-30. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.
Chain activityUsers and transactions: not published for these coins; chain TVL: not published for these coins.
Market capSnapshot dated 2026-11-05; no historical supply series is implied.
Questions the page should answer directly
Crypto analysis FAQs
These 20 answers cover the questions this page can settle from data it holds: what the category is, how the score is built, what the coverage gaps are, and what would change the read. Every answer below is also present in the page’s FAQ schema and in its plain-text rendition. None of them is a recommendation.
What is Interoperability/Bridges crypto?
Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins are the coins CoinGecko tags as Canonical Bridge or Cross-chain Communication. Each coin sits in one theme only: the first, most specific one its tags match. We track 9 Interoperability/Bridges coins, 8 of them rated below.
What is the total market cap of Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins?
The 8 Interoperability/Bridges coins on this page with a current market cap were worth about $1.0 billion together, by CoinGecko's reading of 5 November 2026. Individual figures are in the table.
Are Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?
Interoperability/Bridges has returned -57.9% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and +5.7% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 4/8 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-10-30.
Which Interoperability/Bridges asset has the strongest research score?
LayerZero ranks first at 66.1/100: 30.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 10.6 = 66.1. It is labelled “Price-led, little network data” with 43% overall evidence and 0% native-economics evidence.
Why are some Interoperability/Bridges coins not rated?
1 of the 9 coins is not rated this week: 1 carries a hole longer than 30 days inside the 95-day window. They stay listed with the reason beside each one rather than being scored at a neutral midpoint, because a missing reading is not a middling reading.
How is the Interoperability/Bridges 4-factor score calculated?
The exact sum is Market leadership /35 + Network and economic traction /30 + Value capture /20 + Liquidity and downside risk /15. Missing data pulls only the affected factor toward neutral and lowers evidence; it is never silently reweighted.
Why can a Interoperability/Bridges asset be labelled price-led?
Price-led means price and relative-strength evidence exists but less than half of the native traction and value-capture evidence is available. Such assets remain visible but rank below fully evidenced assets.
Does protocol revenue accrue to the token?
Not necessarily. Protocol fees and revenue measure network economics; token-holder value depends on the protocol’s burn, buyback, staking, distribution and governance rules. This page never assumes accrual merely because revenue exists.
Does crypto have a P/E or PEG ratio?
No comparable company-style P/E or PEG is used. Where coverage permits, the page shows network fee yield and protocol-revenue yield against a dated market-cap snapshot, with an explicit token-accrual caveat.
How much history is shown for Interoperability/Bridges?
The page shows five years of weekly price and relative-strength history and 20 complete calendar quarters of on-chain activity where available. Missing periods remain gaps.
Why do the crypto data dates differ?
Prices and technical metrics run through 2026-10-30; protocol activity through 2026-10-30; chain users and transactions through the latest available chain date; chain TVL through the latest available chain-TVL date; market capitalisation is a separate snapshot dated 2026-11-05.
Are stablecoins and wrapped tokens included in Interoperability/Bridges?
No. Pegged, wrapped, liquid-staking receipt and tokenized-asset instruments are excluded because they do not have independent price discovery.
Can one token appear in multiple raw crypto categories?
Yes, but pages on this site assign each asset to exactly one functional theme using a specific-to-general first-match taxonomy. Interoperability/Bridges therefore has one canonical membership list.
What would invalidate the current Interoperability/Bridges theme read?
The read weakens if the sector’s 13-week relative return versus Bitcoin falls below zero, fewer than one-third of covered assets remain above the 200-day average, and the leading asset’s native activity contracts. As of 2026-10-30, none of the three conditions are in place.
Does this page include funding rates, open interest or token unlocks?
No. Those datasets are not held in the current research store, so the page names them as unavailable rather than inferring them from price.
Which projects are generating the most network fees?
Wormhole leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $430.2K, 13% ahead of Hyperlane. The one asset with comparable change data is not growing. Coverage is 3 of the 8 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if fee growth turns negative across two complete calendar quarters or fee coverage falls below the stated threshold.
Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?
Hyperlane leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $380K. Coverage is 2 of the 8 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if revenue growth turns negative or the revenue-to-fees take rate falls for two complete calendar quarters.
Where is capital actually committed on-chain?
Wormhole leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $1.8B, 2070% ahead of Hyperlane. The one asset with comparable change data is not growing. Coverage is 2 of the 8 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q3 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero. Investor read: Use this as a network-economics research lead, not token-holder earnings. Verify whether the measured activity accrues to the token before treating scale as value capture. This conclusion weakens if TVL rises while fees and users fall; that pattern can be incentive-funded mercenary liquidity.
Which Interoperability/Bridges project has the largest fee base?
Wormhole leads covered trailing-12-month fees at $430.2K. Coverage is 3/8; this is network activity, not automatically token-holder income.
Which are the biggest Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins by market cap?
LayerZero is the largest Interoperability/Bridges crypto coin by market capitalisation at $742.6M, ahead of Wormhole at $75.1M and ZetaChain at $60.7M. The 8 Interoperability/Bridges coins on this page carry $1B between them, with a market-cap figure on file for 8 of them. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-11-05.