Across excels at providing predictable, low-cost transfers for high-value transactions by leveraging a unique optimistic verification model and a unified liquidity pool on Ethereum. This eliminates the need for canonical bridging fees on destination chains. For example, a $10,000 USDC transfer from Arbitrum to Optimism typically costs a flat fee of ~$2-5, making it highly cost-effective for large amounts, especially during periods of low gas prices on Ethereum L1.
LABS
Comparisons
Across vs Hop: Transfer Fees
A technical comparison of the fee models for Across Protocol and Hop Protocol. Analyzes cost structure, predictability, and trade-offs between liquidity pool-based and bonded relayer architectures for cross-chain transfers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Fee Model Duel
A data-driven breakdown of the fundamental fee structures between Across and Hop Protocol for cross-chain transfers.
Hop Protocol takes a different approach by using bonded relayers and AMM pools on each connected chain. This results in a fee structure composed of a fixed bridge fee plus variable AMM liquidity fees (swap fees and slippage). This model is highly efficient for small, frequent transfers, as seen with a $100 USDC transfer from Polygon to Arbitrum costing ~$0.50-$1.50, but costs can scale with transaction size due to pool depth.
The key trade-off: If your priority is cost predictability and minimizing fees for large-value transfers (e.g., treasury movements, whale transactions), choose Across. If you prioritize speed and lower absolute cost for small-to-medium transfers across a wide array of L2s (Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base), choose Hop Protocol.
tldr-summary
Across vs Hop: Transfer Fees
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the core fee models and cost structures for cross-chain bridging.
01
Across: Predictable, Flat Fees
Uses a flat Relayer Fee: Fees are a fixed percentage of the transfer amount, plus a small gas reimbursement. This model is highly predictable and often cheaper for large transfers. It's ideal for whales, DAO treasuries, and institutional transfers where cost certainty is critical.
02
Hop: Variable, Market-Driven Fees
Uses a dynamic AMM fee: Cost is based on liquidity depth and demand in the destination chain's bonder pool. Fees can spike during high congestion. This model is optimized for high-frequency, smaller transfers where speed is prioritized over perfect predictability.
03
Across: Optimistic Model Savings
Leverages optimistic verification: The core protocol uses a fraud-proof window, allowing it to batch transactions and minimize on-chain costs. This architectural choice directly translates to lower base fees for users, especially on high-gas chains like Ethereum Mainnet.
04
Hop: Speed vs. Fee Trade-off
Prioritizes instant guarantees: By using on-chain liquidity (bonders), Hop provides near-instant receipt of canonical assets. You pay a premium for this speed and convenience. Choose Hop when user experience and fast settlement (e.g., for DeFi interactions) are worth a higher variable cost.
FEE MODEL FEATURE COMPARISON
Across vs Hop: Transfer Fee Comparison
Direct comparison of key cost and fee-related metrics for cross-chain bridging.
| Metric | Across Protocol | Hop Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Typical Transfer Fee (ETH to Arbitrum) | ~$1.50 - $4.00 | ~$4.00 - $10.00 |
Fee Model | Dynamic (Relayer Bids + System Fees) | Fixed (Bonder Fees + AMM LP Fees) |
Fee Paid In | Source chain gas + destination gas | Source chain gas + bridge fee (in source asset) |
Speed-Optimized Fee | ||
Capital Efficiency for Liquidity Providers | High (Uses existing L1 liquidity) | Lower (Requires locked capital in pools) |
Native Gas Sponsorship | true (via Relayers) | |
Average Transfer Time | ~1 - 4 minutes | ~10 - 20 minutes |
COST BREAKDOWN & PREDICTABILITY
Across vs Hop: Transfer Fees
Direct comparison of key cost metrics for cross-chain transfers.
| Metric | Across Protocol | Hop Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Typical Transfer Fee (ETH → Arbitrum) | $2 - $15 | $5 - $25 |
Fee Predictability | High (Auction-based) | Medium (LP fees + gas) |
Gas Cost Coverage | ||
Native Bridge Discount | ||
Fee Rebate Program | ||
Average Time to Destination | ~5 min | ~15 min |
pros-cons-a
PROTOCOL FEE ANALYSIS
Across vs Hop: Transfer Fees
A data-driven comparison of fee structures for cross-chain transfers. Fees are a primary cost driver for protocols and power users.
01
Across: Lower Average Cost
Optimistic model with relayers: Across uses a competitive network of relayers who front capital, often resulting in lower effective fees for users. The model is designed to find the cheapest route, not to extract maximum fees. This matters for high-frequency traders and protocols moving large volumes where basis points matter.
~0.1-0.3%
Typical Fee
03
Hop: Higher Base, But Integrated AMM
Bonder liquidity with AMM fees: Hop's fee includes a bonding fee (for capital provision) and AMM swap fees if the destination asset differs (e.g., USDC on Arbitrum to USDC on Optimism incurs a small fee). This can lead to higher total costs for simple transfers but enables native-to-native asset bridging without manual swaps. This matters for end-users in wallets/apps seeking a seamless, one-click experience.
~0.3-0.6%+
Typical Fee
pros-cons-b
Across vs Hop: Transfer Fees
Hop Protocol: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for cross-chain bridging fees at a glance.
01
Hop's Strength: Predictable, On-Chain Fees
Fixed fee model: Fees are calculated on-chain based on gas costs and a small protocol fee, visible before you sign. This eliminates surprise price spikes from external relayers. This matters for high-frequency traders and protocols that require precise cost forecasting for operations like rebalancing or arbitrage.
02
Hop's Weakness: Higher Base Cost for Short Distances
Multi-hop architecture cost: Transfers between non-adjacent chains (e.g., Polygon to Arbitrum) require intermediate hops on L1, incurring multiple L1 settlement fees. This results in ~$5-15+ fees for many routes, which is non-competitive for simple transfers under ~$1k. This matters for users making small, frequent transfers where fee percentage becomes prohibitive.
03
Across's Strength: Optimized, Low-Cost Routing
Relayer-based efficiency: Uses a network of competing relayers who front funds on the destination chain, settling later via a slow, cheap L1 transaction. This often results in sub-$1 fees for major routes (e.g., Arbitrum to Ethereum) and faster receive times. This matters for cost-sensitive users and DAOs moving treasury funds where minimizing absolute cost is the priority.
04
Across's Weakness: Variable & Opaque Fee Discovery
Dynamic relayer pricing: Fees are set by relayers off-chain and can fluctuate based on network congestion and competition. Users cannot audit the fee calculation on-chain before initiating. This matters for institutional users requiring full transparency and smart contracts that need deterministic fee logic for automated transfers.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Across for Cost-Sensitive Users
Verdict: The clear winner for minimizing fees on large transfers. Strengths: Across's core innovation is its single-relayer model and optimistic verification. This means you pay a fee only on the destination chain, which is typically a small, flat percentage (e.g., 0.1%). For a $10,000 USDC transfer from Arbitrum to Optimism, fees are often under $10. The cost does not scale linearly with gas prices on the origin chain, making it exceptionally predictable and cheap for high-value moves.
Hop for Cost-Sensitive Users
Verdict: Can be cheaper for small, frequent transfers, but less predictable. Strengths: Hop uses AMMs on each chain, so fees are the sum of origin and destination gas costs plus a small protocol fee. For very small transfers (e.g., $50), this can sometimes be lower than Across's flat rate. However, during network congestion, origin-chain gas can spike unpredictably. Use tools like Socket or Bungee to compare real-time quotes before sending.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Across and Hop is a strategic decision between capital efficiency and ecosystem breadth.
Across Protocol excels at minimizing user fees for large, non-time-sensitive transfers by leveraging a unique architecture of optimistic verification and a single canonical bridge on Ethereum. This model, powered by its Unified Liquidity Pool (ULP) and relayers like Across Labs, results in consistently lower fees, often 50-80% cheaper than optimistic rollup native bridges for cross-chain actions. Its deep integration with protocols like Circle's CCTP for USDC further solidifies its position as the cost-leader for high-value, cross-chain asset transfers.
Hop Protocol takes a different approach by operating a network of canonical bridges and Automated Market Makers (AMMs) on each destination chain. This strategy prioritizes speed and direct access to a broad Layer 2 ecosystem, including Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, and Base. The trade-off is that its fee model includes AMM swap fees and bridge fees, making it generally more expensive for simple asset transfers but highly effective for rapid, multi-hop journeys across diverse rollups where native bridges are slow.
The key trade-off: If your primary priority is minimizing transfer cost for users moving significant value (e.g., institutional transfers, treasury management), choose Across. If you prioritize ecosystem reach and transfer speed for users navigating between multiple, specific L2s (e.g., a user frequently swapping between Arbitrum and Base), choose Hop. For protocols, the choice hinges on whether your users value absolute cost savings or the convenience of a unified, fast bridge into a fragmented L2 landscape.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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