Across vs Stargate: Cost Predictability

introduction

THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Cost Predictability Imperative

In cross-chain bridging, predictable transaction costs are non-negotiable for scaling applications and managing budgets.

Across excels at predictable, low-cost bridging by leveraging a unique model of intents, bonded relayers, and a single on-chain settlement on Ethereum. This architecture minimizes gas volatility for users. For example, bridging from Arbitrum to Optimism often costs a flat, predictable fee of a few dollars, as the bulk of the transaction is handled off-chain by professional relayers competing on speed and cost.

Stargate takes a different approach by offering native asset transfers with guaranteed finality through its Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard and LayerZero protocol. This results in a trade-off: while offering superior composability for DeFi protocols like SushiSwap and Pendle, its cost is more directly tied to the destination chain's gas fees, introducing more variability, especially during network congestion.

The key trade-off: If your priority is budget certainty and lowest cost for users, especially for high-volume transfers from L2s, choose Across. If you prioritize native asset transfers and deep DeFi composability across chains like Avalanche and Polygon, accepting some gas volatility, choose Stargate.

tldr-summary

Across vs Stargate: Cost Predictability

TL;DR: Core Differentiators

Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for teams prioritizing budget certainty in cross-chain operations.

Across: Predictable, Fixed Fees

Relayer-based model: Users pay a fixed, upfront fee quoted by the relayer. This fee is independent of destination chain gas prices, providing absolute cost certainty. This matters for enterprise treasury operations and high-frequency rebalancing where budget overruns are unacceptable.

Across: No Gas Airdrops

Native gas handling: The Across relayer pays for destination chain gas, eliminating the need for users to hold native tokens (e.g., ETH on Arbitrum) or rely on unpredictable gas airdrops. This matters for user onboarding and applications serving non-crypto-native users who shouldn't manage multiple gas tokens.

Stargate: Variable, Market-Driven Fees

Liquidity Pool model: Fees are a dynamic function of pool utilization, bridge traffic, and chain congestion. While often competitive, costs can spike during high demand. This matters for protocols with flexible budgets that can batch transactions during low-fee windows or use LayerZero's delivery guarantees for premium service.

Stargate: LayerZero Fee Complexity

Multi-component pricing: Users pay a message fee to LayerZero (for security), a swap fee to Stargate, and must fund destination gas. This creates a composite cost structure that is harder to predict upfront. This matters for developers building precise cost calculators and dApps that need to display exact transfer totals before user confirmation.

ACROSS VS STARGATE: COST PREDICTABILITY

Feature Matrix: Fee Model & Architecture

Direct comparison of fee structures and architectural approaches for cross-chain bridging.

Metric	Across	Stargate
Fee Model	Dynamic (Relayer + Gas)	Fixed (0.06% + Gas)
Fee Predictability	Low (Gas Auction)	High (Fixed Rate)
Primary Cost Component	Destination Gas	Protocol Fee + Gas
Gas Reimbursement
Native Gas Token Required
Supported Chains	15+	15+
Architecture	Optimistic Verification	LayerZero OFT Standard

pros-cons-a

BRIDGE FEE ANALYSIS

A direct comparison of how each protocol structures and predicts fees for cross-chain transfers. Cost predictability is critical for budgeting and user experience.

Across: Dynamic & Auction-Based

Key Mechanism: Uses a real-time auction model where relayers compete to fill transfers, with fees determined by market demand and liquidity depth.

Pro: Fees can be significantly lower during low congestion, often 20-50% cheaper than fixed-rate alternatives.
Con: Less predictable. Final fee is known only after the auction completes, making precise pre-transaction budgeting difficult for applications.

~$0.10 - $5+

Typical Fee Range

Stargate: Fixed & Compositional

Key Mechanism: Employs a unified liquidity model with a fixed fee formula based on chain pair, transfer size, and LP fees.

Pro: High predictability. Fees are calculated and displayed upfront via the getFee function, enabling exact cost estimation for dApp users.
Con: Less dynamic. Fees include a baseline liquidity provider fee and a protocol fee, which can be higher than auction-based models in low-demand periods.

~0.06% - 0.2%

Base LP Fee

Choose Across For

Optimizing for absolute lowest cost when exact timing isn't critical.

Use Case: Large treasury rebalancing, protocol-owned liquidity movements, or back-office operations where you can batch transfers and wait for favorable auction conditions.
Example: Moving $1M USDC from Arbitrum to Optimism during off-peak hours to secure a sub-$100 fee.

Choose Stargate For

Prioritizing user experience and budget certainty in consumer-facing applications.

Use Case: DEX aggregators (like 1inch), payment apps, or any dApp where showing a guaranteed, all-in fee before the user signs the transaction is mandatory.
Example: A cross-chain swap on a frontend that uses Stargate's SDK to quote exact fees for the user journey.

pros-cons-b

PROS AND CONS

Stargate Finance vs Across: Cost Predictability

A direct comparison of fee models and cost guarantees for cross-chain transfers. Predictability is critical for high-volume users and protocol treasuries.

Stargate: Predictable, Flat Fees

Fixed-fee model: Fees are calculated as a flat percentage of the transfer amount, plus a small gas contribution. This provides clear, upfront cost visibility for users and integrators like LayerZero and Radiant Capital.

Pro: Budgeting is straightforward. You know the exact cost before signing the transaction, which is ideal for automated treasury operations.

Across: Dynamic, Auction-Based Fees

Relayer auction model: Fees are determined by a real-time auction among competing relayers (like Across, Bored Town). The final fee is the sum of the winning bid and a small fixed protocol fee.

Con: Final cost is not known until the transaction is relayed on the destination chain. This introduces uncertainty, though fees are often highly competitive.

Stargate: Potential for Higher Base Cost

Trade-off for predictability: The flat fee model can be less adaptive to market conditions. During periods of low network congestion, Stargate's fees may be higher than dynamic alternatives.

Con: For users prioritizing absolute lowest cost over predictability, this model can be suboptimal, especially for smaller transfers where fixed fees represent a larger percentage.

Across: Optimized for Best-Effort Savings

Pro for cost-sensitive users: The auction mechanism is designed to consistently find the lowest possible fee from the relayer network at that moment. This benefits protocols like UMA and Polymarket that prioritize minimizing operational expenses.

Strength: In practice, this often results in lower total costs than fixed-fee bridges, but requires accepting the uncertainty.

ACROSS VS STARGATE: COST PREDICTABILITY

Cost Analysis: Fee Components Breakdown

Direct comparison of fee structures and predictability for cross-chain bridging.

Fee Component	Across	Stargate
Base Bridge Fee Predictability	Fixed rate per route (e.g., 0.1%)	Dynamic based on destination chain congestion
Gas Fee Payment Method	Relayer pays destination gas; user pays in source token	User must hold destination chain's native token for gas
Liquidity Provider Fee	Dynamic, based on relay auction (typically <0.1%)	Fixed 0.06% + variable pool imbalance fee
Slippage	Near-zero via intents & fill competition	0-5%+ depending on pool depth
Speed-Based Surcharge
Estimated Total Cost (ETH → Arbitrum)	$2-5	$5-15+

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

User Scenarios: When to Choose Which

Across for DeFi

Verdict: The strategic choice for large, time-sensitive capital movements. Strengths: Unbeatable for cost predictability on large transfers due to its unique single-sided liquidity model and relayer-based architecture. The cost is a known, flat fee paid in the source chain's gas, with no slippage. This is critical for protocols like UMA and Polymarket executing large treasury rebalances or insurance payouts where final value must be guaranteed. Trade-off: Lower maximum throughput (limited by relayer capacity) and a narrower set of supported tokens (focused on major blue-chips like ETH, USDC, WBTC).

Stargate for DeFi

Verdict: The optimal choice for high-frequency, composable liquidity operations. Strengths: Superior for predictable, small-to-medium transfers within a DeFi pipeline. Its native Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard and Delta Algorithm provide consistent, low fees that are easy to calculate on-chain, enabling seamless integrations for yield aggregators and cross-chain money markets like Radiant Capital. Supports 30+ tokens. Trade-off: Fees can vary slightly based on destination chain congestion and liquidity pool depth, introducing minor unpredictability for very large sums.

verdict

THE ANALYSIS

Verdict and Decision Framework

A final assessment of Across and Stargate's cost models, helping you select the right bridge based on your predictability requirements.

Across excels at predictable, low-cost transfers for users by leveraging a unique model of intent-based auctions and optimistic verification. Its core cost is the relayer fee, which is consistently low because relayers compete on speed, not price, and are reimbursed from a separate liquidity pool. For example, a standard USDC transfer on Ethereum to Arbitrum often costs under $1 in total fees, with the user paying only the gas for the initial transaction on the source chain. This model shields users from destination chain gas volatility.

Stargate takes a different approach by guaranteeing instant, canonical asset delivery, which results in a different fee trade-off. Its fee is a composite of a fixed protocol fee (e.g., 1-6 bps) and the actual gas cost on the destination chain, which is estimated and passed to the user. This means fees can spike during network congestion—a transfer to Polygon zkEVM during high activity could see fees 3-5x higher than in calm periods. The trade-off is predictability for the user versus guaranteed finality for the protocol.

The key trade-off: If your priority is user experience and budget predictability for frequent, smaller transfers—especially in high-volume DeFi applications or payroll—choose Across. Its model provides a near-fixed cost. If you prioritize instant guaranteed settlement and liquidity uniformity for large, time-sensitive institutional transfers, and can accept variable gas costs, choose Stargate. Its LayerZero-based architecture ensures the message and asset arrive together atomically, a critical feature for certain arbitrage or rebalancing strategies.

Across vs Stargate: Cost Predictability

Introduction: The Cost Predictability Imperative

TL;DR: Core Differentiators

Across: Predictable, Fixed Fees

Across: No Gas Airdrops

Stargate: Variable, Market-Driven Fees

Stargate: LayerZero Fee Complexity

Feature Matrix: Fee Model & Architecture