Is Interoperability/Bridges outperforming Bitcoin, and is leadership broad?
Bottom line
deBridge ranks first for research priority in Interoperability/Bridges crypto at 67.6/100, and its native activity evidence clears the coverage gate. The theme's 13-week excess versus Bitcoin is -17.1% on 0% breadth, which is what decides whether that lead is isolated or broad. 3 of the 9 assets here carry enough native evidence to move past a tape-led label.
These Interoperability/Bridges coins are part of the cryptocurrency universe this site tracks daily — 894 of the top 1,000 crypto currency assets by market cap, priced from exchange closes 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 63% behind Bitcoin. Protocol revenue across its protocols fell 6% on average over the last four reported quarters. It has been ahead of Bitcoin on a rolling three-month view for 11 weeks running.
BREAKING OUT · ahead 11w·Price down, no fundamental support4 of 10 coins ahead of Bitcoin by 5% or more over three months
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 distance between them is the whole story: the theme line is an equal-weighted index of its 10 coins. The bars underneath are trailing 12-month protocol revenue, one bar per reported quarter, each member rebased to 100 at the start and the theme taking the median — so a price line pulling away from flat bars is a re-rating, not earnings. A bar turns red when that figure is lower than the quarter before. Rules are fixed and applied identically 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 any point to read both values and the gap. This is a description of what the numbers did, not advice.
RISK OFF market context
Interoperability/Bridges vs Bitcoin — Relative Strength & Breadth
Interoperability/Bridges crypto has underperformed Bitcoin by 61.4% over 52 weeks on an equal-weight index of current members. Over 13 weeks the figure is -17.1%. 0 of 5 covered assets are above their own 200-day average. deBridge leads Bitcoin-relative strength at +18%. Price readings are as of 2026-07-31.
-17%13w vs BTC
-61%52w vs BTC
0/5Above 200-DMA
DBRRS leader · +18%
Assets
9
canonical functional membership
Activity-covered
3/9
enough native evidence
Top score
67.6/100
deBridge
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 9 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. deBridge is highest at 67.6/100 on 91% evidence. It ranks research attention, not portfolio action.
deBridge leads the current research queue at 67.6/100 with 91% evidence.
3/9 assets have enough native activity evidence to move beyond a tape-led label.
2 of the 11 Interoperability/Bridges coins are not rated this week: 1 has no price within 7 days, 1 reports no traded volume. 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. deBridge · DBR
67.6/100 · Illiquid · research only · 91% evidence
Exact sum: 26.8 + 16.4 + 18.1 + 6.3 = 67.6
Decision use: Evidence is mixed. Keep normal research priority and wait for two pillars to agree.
26.8/35Market leadership
RS-BTC 18 pp · RS-sector 16.2 pp · 200-DMA below
100% evidence
16.4/30Network & economic traction
Fees 9.7% · revenue 9.7% · users —
70% evidence
18.1/20Value capture
Fee yield 12.46% · revenue yield 12.46%
100% evidence
6.3/15Liquidity & downside risk
30d median volume $7,651 · vol 25.1%
100% evidence
2. Hyperlane · HYPER
53.2/100 · Illiquid · research only · 28% evidence
Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 13.5 + 7.2 = 53.2
Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
17.5/35Market leadership
RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —
0% evidence
15.0/30Network & economic traction
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
13.5/20Value capture
Fee yield 5.26% · revenue yield 5.26%
81% evidence
7.2/15Liquidity & downside risk
30d median volume $585,415 · vol —
80% evidence
3. LayerZero · ZRO
50.3/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence
Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 7.8 = 50.3
Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
17.5/35Market leadership
RS-BTC — · RS-sector — · 200-DMA —
0% evidence
15.0/30Network & economic traction
Fees — · revenue — · users —
0% evidence
10.0/20Value capture
Fee yield — · revenue yield —
0% evidence
7.8/15Liquidity & downside risk
30d median volume $2,088,635 · vol —
80% evidence
4. Axelar · AXL
48.0/100 · Illiquid · research only · 12% evidence
Exact sum: 17.5 + 15.0 + 10.0 + 5.5 = 48.0
Decision use: Treat this as a tape-led lead. Require native activity confirmation before upgrading research priority.
Which projects are generating the most network fees?
deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 2 of 3 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 5 of the 9 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderdeBridge · $10.1M
Gap618% versus #2
Persistence2 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage5/9 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 five
1deBridge DBR$10.1M
2Hyperlane HYPER$1.4M
3Wormhole W$661.7K
4Across Protocol ACX$644.8K
5ZetaChain ZETA$37.7K
Fee growthtop five
1deBridge DBR+9.7%
2ZetaChain ZETA+0.5%
3Across Protocol ACX-93%
Network fees · asset comparison
5/9 level · 3/9 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month fees
Fee growth
debridge
$1.8M
+9.7%
hyperlane
$36.8K
—
layerzero
—
—
axelar
—
—
threshold-network-token
—
—
wormhole
$48.4K
—
across-protocol
$165.9K
-93%
icon
—
—
zetachain
$452
+0.5%
02 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Which projects convert activity into protocol revenue?
deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 1 of 1 asset with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 4 of the 9 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderdeBridge · $10.1M
Gap618% versus #2
Persistence1 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage4/9 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 five
1deBridge DBR$10.1M
2Hyperlane HYPER$1.4M
3Across Protocol ACX$0
4Wormhole W$0
Revenue growthtop five
1deBridge DBR+9.7%
Protocol revenue · asset comparison
4/9 level · 1/9 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Trailing 12-month revenue
Revenue growth
debridge
$1.8M
+9.7%
hyperlane
$36.8K
—
layerzero
—
—
axelar
—
—
threshold-network-token
—
—
wormhole
$0
—
across-protocol
$0
—
icon
—
—
zetachain
—
—
03 · complete calendar-quarter evidence
Where is capital actually committed on-chain?
Wormhole leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Quarter-end TVL at $2.1B, 2086% ahead of Hyperlane. 0 of 5 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 6 of the 9 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 2026 calendar quarter. Where a project publishes nothing, the cell stays blank rather than being read as zero.
LeaderWormhole · $2.1B
Gap2086% versus #2
Persistence0 assets have positive comparable growth
Coverage6/9 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 five
1Wormhole W$2.1B
2Hyperlane HYPER$94.7M
3Across Protocol ACX$19.0M
4deBridge DBR$2.3M
5ICON ICX$1.5M
TVL growthtop five
1Wormhole W-20%
2Across Protocol ACX-78%
3deBridge DBR-79%
4ICON ICX-89%
5ZetaChain ZETA-97%
Total value locked · asset comparison
6/9 level · 5/9 change
Latest comparable data · top 20 shown first
Asset
Quarter-end TVL
TVL growth
debridge
$2.3M
-79%
hyperlane
$94.7M
—
layerzero
—
—
axelar
—
—
threshold-network-token
—
—
wormhole
$2.1B
-20%
across-protocol
$19.0M
-78%
icon
$1.5M
-89%
zetachain
$359.4K
-97%
04 · let price answer last
Which assets lead on price and relative strength?
deBridge leads the Interoperability/Bridges tape on Bitcoin-relative strength at +18% over 90 days. 0 of 5 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 2026-07-31.
Complete set · no silent drops
Which assets are in Interoperability/Bridges?
9 of the 11 coins assigned to Interoperability/Bridges are rated and ranked below, and the other 2 are listed under it with the reason each one is not rated — tape-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.
2 of the 11 Interoperability/Bridges coins are not rated this week: 1 has no price within 7 days, 1 reports no traded volume. Each one stays on this page with its reason instead of being scored at the midpoint of a range nothing measured.
No traded volume is reported on most of the last 30 days, so it has no liquidity reading.
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 — 3 of 9 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 2026-07-31. Five-year weekly observations benchmarked to Bitcoin.
Protocol activityThrough 2026-07-31. Fees, revenue, protocol TVL and DEX volume.
Chain activityUsers and transactions through 2026-07-31; separately sourced chain TVL through 2026-07-25.
Market capSnapshot dated 2026-07-04; 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 refers to cryptocurrency projects grouped by what they actually do rather than by market fashion. This page tracks 9 such coins by market cap, price and Bitcoin-relative strength, with protocol fees and revenue where a project publishes them. Readings are as of 2026-07-31.
What is the total market cap of Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins?
The Interoperability/Bridges coins on this page are tracked against a universe of 894 of the top 1,000 crypto currency assets by market cap. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-07-04, separately from the price series, and each coin's own figure is in the table on this page.
Are Interoperability/Bridges crypto coins outperforming Bitcoin?
Interoperability/Bridges has returned -61.4% versus Bitcoin over 52 weeks and -17.1% over 13 weeks on an equal-weight current-member index. 0/5 covered assets are above their 200-day averages as of 2026-07-31.
Which Interoperability/Bridges asset has the strongest research score?
deBridge ranks first at 67.6/100: 26.8 + 16.4 + 18.1 + 6.3 = 67.6. It is labelled “Illiquid · research only” with 91% overall evidence and 82% native-economics evidence.
Why are some Interoperability/Bridges coins not rated?
2 of the 11 coins are not rated this week: 1 has no price within 7 days, 1 reports no traded volume. 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 tape-led?
Tape-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 2026-07-31; protocol activity through 2026-07-31; chain users and transactions through 2026-07-31; chain TVL through 2026-07-25; market capitalisation is a separate snapshot dated 2026-07-04.
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 public MLA pages 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 also contracts.
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?
deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month fees at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 2 of 3 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 5 of the 9 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 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?
deBridge leads Interoperability/Bridges crypto on Trailing 12-month revenue at $10.1M, 618% ahead of Hyperlane. 1 of 1 asset with comparable change data is growing. Coverage is 4 of the 9 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 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 $2.1B, 2086% ahead of Hyperlane. 0 of 5 assets with comparable change data are growing. Coverage is 6 of the 9 ranked assets in this theme, through the Q2 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?
deBridge leads covered trailing-12-month fees at $10.1M. Coverage is 5/9; 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 $229M, ahead of deBridge at $80.8M and Wormhole at $62.9M. The 9 Interoperability/Bridges coins on this page carry $607.8M between them, with a market-cap figure on file for 9 of them. Market-cap metadata is dated 2026-07-04.