Flip vs Jumper

Honest head-to-head between Flip and Jumper (powered by LI.FI). Both are non-custodial cross-chain swap UIs. The real difference: Jumper is the deepest EVM-to-EVM aggregator and the standard choice for that corridor; Flip is the alternative when native Bitcoin is involved.

The short version

Jumper:Aggregator on top of LI.FI's cross-chain infrastructure. Routes through bridges (Across, Connext, Stargate, Hop, etc.) to move tokens across EVM chains and Solana. Best-in-class depth for EVM corridors. No native Bitcoin support.

Flip:UI on top of NEAR Intents' solver-network protocol. Doesn't use bridges — solvers fill orders directly with collateral-backed commitments. Includes native Bitcoin alongside EVM and Solana corridors. Newer, less liquidity depth on EVM routes.

The biggest difference: native Bitcoin

Jumper doesn't route to or from native Bitcoin. If you want to swap BTC for USDC on Base via Jumper, your options are: wrap your BTC into WBTC first (through a custodian), then bridge WBTC across. Two custody-flavor steps before you even reach the swap.

Flip handles native BTC directly. You send actual Bitcoin from your own Bitcoin wallet; you receive the destination asset on the destination chain. One signature on your side, no wrap.

Settlement model

Jumper / LI.FI:Routes through bridges underneath. Bridges have a long history of security incidents (~$2.5B stolen since 2022 across the cross-chain space). LI.FI's router selects the best bridge for each route, but the underlying security depends on whatever bridge fills that leg.

Flip / NEAR Intents: Intent-based settlement. Solvers post collateral and compete to fill cross-chain orders directly. Failed delivery → automatic refund via slashed collateral. No bridge treasury for hackers to drain. Newer architecture, less battle-tested at scale.

Coverage and liquidity

Jumper:~20+ EVM chains, Solana, deep aggregation across dozens of bridges and DEXes. If you're doing a non-trivial EVM swap, Jumper almost always has a route and usually the best price.

Flip:Six chains (BTC, ETH, Arbitrum, Base, Solana, NEAR). Smaller surface area, but the BTC corridors Jumper doesn't cover.

Fees

Jumper: No interface fee on top of the bridge and swap costs that LI.FI routes through. You pay the underlying bridge fees + DEX spread + gas, but Jumper itself is free.

Flip: One flat protocol fee (currently 0.5% all-in, displayed in every quote). No additional spread or markup; just the protocol fee + destination-chain network gas.

UX

Subjective. Jumper has a polished, feature-dense interface with token search, route comparison, history, and an active product team. Flip is intentionally narrower: one focused swap card, native BTC support visible from the first interaction, premium minimalist aesthetic. Either is defensible.

When Jumper is the right choice

Most EVM-to-EVM swaps. Most routes that don't touch Bitcoin. Any swap where you want the deepest possible liquidity routing across many bridges and DEXes. If you're already paying gas on five chains regularly, Jumper's coverage matters.

When Flip is the right choice

Anything involving native Bitcoin as source or destination. Cases where the bridge security model concerns you (most bridges have been hacked at some point). When you want a flat, predictable fee instead of variable bridge-routing costs. When you're a non-EVM-first user (Solana / NEAR / BTC native) and don't want a UI optimized around Ethereum.

Try both

Honestly, the two products serve overlapping but distinct audiences. Use Jumper for pure EVM swaps; use Flip when native Bitcoin or non-bridge settlement matters to you. Side- by-side feature matrix at /compare (includes THORSwap and CEX route).