Hashflow excels at providing price certainty and zero slippage because it uses a Request-for-Quote (RFQ) model where professional market makers commit to firm quotes on-chain. For example, its architecture supports quotes for complex multi-leg trades directly, a feature not common in AMM-based bridges. This model is ideal for institutional traders and protocols like Trader Joe and Ribbon Finance that require predictable execution costs and large trade sizes without impacting the pool.
LABS
Comparisons
Hashflow vs Across Protocol: Cross-Chain RFQ Trading
A technical comparison of two leading RFQ-based cross-chain solutions. Hashflow uses a professional dealer network for pricing, while Across employs a relayed liquidity pool model secured by UMA oracles. This analysis covers architecture, performance, cost, and security trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The RFQ Battle for Cross-Chain Liquidity
A head-to-head comparison of Hashflow's on-chain RFQ model and Across's optimistic bridging approach for cross-chain trading.
Across Protocol takes a different approach by leveraging a unified liquidity pool on Ethereum and an optimistic relayer network. This results in a trade-off: users often get lower fees (sometimes subsidized) and faster attestations, but must accept a slippage tolerance as their trade is ultimately filled on a destination-chain DEX like Uniswap or Balancer. Its UMA-powered optimistic oracle provides security, making it a robust choice for general asset bridging with high capital efficiency.
The key trade-off: If your priority is execution certainty for large, complex trades and you serve sophisticated users, choose Hashflow. If you prioritize minimizing cost and latency for common asset transfers and value deep, aggregated liquidity, choose Across Protocol. Your decision hinges on whether guaranteed price (RFQ) or optimized fee/speed (unified liquidity) aligns with your users' core needs.
tldr-summary
Hashflow vs Across Protocol
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for cross-chain RFQ trading.
01
Hashflow: Capital Efficiency & Pricing
Professional-grade RFQ model: Takers request quotes directly from professional market makers (MMs) like Wintermute and GSR, receiving bespoke pricing with zero slippage. This matters for large, institutional trades (>$100K) where predictable execution cost is critical.
02
Hashflow: Native Cross-Chain Swaps
Direct settlement on destination chain: Uses a signed quote from the MM, which the user submits directly to the target chain. This eliminates the need for intermediate bridging assets or wrapped tokens, reducing complexity and potential attack vectors for complex DeFi strategies.
03
Across Protocol: Speed & Cost for Retail
Optimistic relay model for fast fills: Relayers compete to fulfill user bridge requests instantly, with settlement finalized later via the UMA Optimistic Oracle. This results in sub-1-minute completion times and lower fees for small-to-medium swaps, ideal for retail users and frequent traders.
04
Across Protocol: Unified Liquidity & Security
Single liquidity pool architecture: All capital is pooled in an Ethereum mainnet contract, secured by the battle-tested UMA Optimistic Oracle for dispute resolution. This centralized liquidity depth simplifies routing and provides strong cryptographic security guarantees, appealing to risk-averse protocols.
CROSS-CHAIN RFQ TRADING
Feature Comparison: Hashflow vs Across Protocol
Direct comparison of key architectural and performance metrics for cross-chain RFQ trading protocols.
| Metric | Hashflow | Across Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Primary Model | On-chain RFQ via Solver Network | Optimistic Verification with Relayer-Bonder |
Avg. Cross-Chain Swap Time | ~2 minutes | < 4 minutes |
Supported Chains | 12+ (EVM & Solana) | 10+ (EVM & non-EVM via Axelar) |
Native Gas Abstraction | ||
Avg. Fee for $10k USDC Swap | 0.1% - 0.3% | 0.1% - 0.5% + gas costs |
Capital Efficiency Model | Solver Liquidity | UMA Bonded Liquidity Pools |
Major Integration Example | UniswapX, 1inch | Socket, LI.FI, Circle CCTP |
CROSS-CHAIN RFQ TRADING COMPARISON
Hashflow vs Across Protocol: Performance & Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of execution models, costs, and supported assets for cross-chain trading.
| Metric / Feature | Hashflow | Across Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Execution Model | RFQ (Request for Quote) via Professional Market Makers | RFQ (Request for Quote) via Relayer + UMA Optimistic Oracle |
Avg. Cross-Chain Swap Time | ~2-5 minutes | < 3 minutes |
Typical Cost (ETH-USDC, $1k swap) | ~0.1% - 0.3% fee + gas | ~0.1% - 0.3% fee + gas |
Native Gas Abstraction | ||
Supported Blockchains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, BSC, Polygon, Solana, more | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base, more |
Primary Settlement Layer | Destination Chain | Ethereum (via Across V3 Hub) |
Major Integrations | 1inch, Metamask, Coinbase Wallet | Socket, LI.FI, Circle CCTP |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Hashflow vs Across Protocol: Cross-Chain RFQ Trading
A data-driven comparison of two leading cross-chain RFQ models. Hashflow uses a professional market maker network, while Across leverages a unified liquidity pool and optimistic relayer model.
01
Hashflow's Strength: Guaranteed Pricing
Request-for-Quote (RFQ) Model: Trades are executed at the quoted price with zero slippage, as prices are signed off-chain by professional market makers (MMs) like Wintermute and GSR. This is critical for large, institutional trades where predictable execution cost is paramount.
0%
Slippage
02
Hashflow's Weakness: Liquidity Fragmentation
Maker-Dependent Liquidity: Available routes and pricing depend entirely on which market makers are active and quoting for a specific pair. This can lead to inconsistent availability for long-tail assets compared to a pooled model, potentially resulting in no fills.
03
Across's Strength: Unified Pool & Speed
Single-Sided Liquidity Pool: The protocol uses a single canonical bridge pool (on Ethereum) that funds all transfers, simplifying liquidity provision. Combined with its optimistic relayer system, this enables sub-2-minute transfers, ideal for users prioritizing speed and a seamless UX.
< 2 min
Typical Transfer
04
Across's Weakness: Slippage & MEV Risk
Pool-Based Execution: Swaps into/out of the bridge pool incur variable slippage based on pool depth. Furthermore, the fill model is susceptible to MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) on the destination chain, which can negatively impact the effective exchange rate for the user.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Hashflow vs Across Protocol: Cross-Chain RFQ Trading
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading cross-chain RFQ models. Use this to decide based on your primary need: best price or guaranteed execution.
01
Hashflow: Superior Price Discovery
Professional market makers: Taps into centralized liquidity pools from firms like Wintermute and GSR, often providing tighter spreads than on-chain AMMs. This matters for large, non-time-sensitive swaps where price is the absolute priority.
0.1%
Typical Fee
03
Hashflow: Cons & Trade-offs
Reliance on professional LPs: Liquidity is not permissionless; depends on a curated set of market makers. No native fast bridge: Lacks a canonical fast-messaging layer, which can lead to longer settlement times (2-20 mins) compared to specialized bridges, especially for smaller chains.
05
Across Protocol: Speed & Finality
Optimistic validation: Enables near-instant "fast fill" from bonded relayers (often <2 mins), with finality secured later. This is critical for arbitrage, liquidations, and time-sensitive DeFi operations where speed is a competitive edge.
< 2 min
Avg. Fast Fill
06
Across Protocol: Cons & Trade-offs
Price can be less competitive: The RFQ is for the relay service, not the asset price itself, which is sourced from a slow DEX like Uniswap. For exotic assets or pairs with low liquidity, this can result in worse effective exchange rates than a dedicated DEX aggregator.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
Hashflow for DeFi Builders
Verdict: The premier choice for institutional-grade, MEV-protected swaps and bespoke liquidity solutions. Strengths:
- RFQ Model: Direct integration with professional market makers (MMs) like Wintermute and GSR for guaranteed, zero-slippage quotes on large orders.
- Smart Order Routing: Aggregates liquidity across 20+ chains via its native intent-based architecture.
- Security: Non-custodial, audited contracts with built-in MEV protection, crucial for protocols handling institutional flow. Consider: Requires active MM relationships; less optimal for small, retail-sized swaps.
Across Protocol for DeFi Builders
Verdict: The optimal bridge for fast, cost-effective asset transfers to power cross-chain composability. Strengths:
- Speed & Cost: Uses a bonded relayer and optimistic validation for ~1-3 minute finality with fees often under $1.
- Universal Liquidity Pool: A single canonical bridge pool on Ethereum (via UMA's oSnap) simplifies integration vs. managing multiple liquidity sources.
- Developer Experience: Simple
depositV3function and a focus on seamless integration for moving assets between chains in dApp flows. Consider: Primarily an asset bridge; not designed for complex cross-chain trading logic.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on selecting between Hashflow's RFQ liquidity and Across's unified liquidity model for cross-chain trading.
Hashflow excels at providing optimal, MEV-protected pricing for large, institutional trades by leveraging its Request-for-Quote (RFQ) model and professional market makers. For example, its model consistently delivers ~20-30 bps better execution for swaps over $100k compared to AMMs, with zero slippage and guaranteed price execution. This makes it the premier choice for protocols like dYdX and Ribbon Finance that require predictable, large-scale capital movements.
Across Protocol takes a different approach by creating a unified liquidity pool, UMA's Optimistic Oracle, and a relay network. This results in a trade-off: while pricing may be less optimized for massive size, it achieves sub-2 minute finality for most transfers by leveraging fast L1s like Ethereum for settlement. Its architecture prioritizes speed and capital efficiency, enabling seamless bridging for users of Uniswap, CowSwap, and other aggregators without fragmenting liquidity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is best-in-class execution price and MEV protection for high-value transactions (e.g., treasury management, institutional arbitrage), choose Hashflow. If you prioritize ultra-fast, cost-effective settlement for a high volume of user-facing swaps (e.g., DEX front-end integrations, retail bridging), choose Across. For protocols building a comprehensive DeFi stack, integrating both can be strategic—using Hashflow for large, scheduled operations and Across for real-time user flows.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall