Axelar vs Synapse: Bridge Fees 2026

Fixed fee model: Pay fees in the source chain's native token (e.g., ETH, AVAX). Axelar validators handle destination gas, providing a single, predictable quote. This matters for dApps requiring stable cost projections and user experiences that abstract away multi-token complexity.

Optimized for programmability: Fees are optimized for General Message Passing (GMP) calls, where the cost includes smart contract execution on the destination chain. This is critical for cross-chain DeFi apps like Squid Router that need to execute complex logic post-transfer.

Liquidity-based routing: Fees are dynamically calculated based on the deepest available liquidity pools (e.g., nUSD, nETH) across chains. This often results in lower effective costs for simple asset transfers, especially for high-volume, supported asset pairs like USDC and ETH.

Capital efficiency for stablecoins: Leverages a canonical Stableswap AMM for stablecoin routes (USDC, USDT, DAI). This minimizes slippage and fees for large, stable-value transfers, making it the preferred model for treasury operations and large-cap stablecoin bridging.

Fixed fee model: Pay fees in the source chain's native gas token (e.g., ETH on Ethereum). Axelar's validators subsidize destination gas, providing cost certainty. This matters for enterprise dApps like Squid Router or Lido that require stable, calculable operational costs for cross-chain swaps and messaging.

Premium for composability: Fees cover Generalized Message Passing (GMP), enabling calls to any contract on the destination chain. This is critical for complex DeFi protocols like Prime Protocol (cross-chain lending) or Uniswap v4 hooks that need more than simple asset transfers.

Variable, liquidity-based fees: Fees are a percentage of the swap amount (e.g., 5-30 bps) plus gas. For large, simple transfers on high-liquidity routes (ETH→Arbitrum), this can be significantly cheaper. This matters for high-volume traders and arbitrageurs moving large sums where percentage fees are competitive.

User pays destination gas: Users must hold the destination chain's native token (e.g., MATIC for Polygon) to complete the bridge, adding complexity and cost volatility. This is a friction point for new users and wallet applications that seek a seamless, single-token experience, as seen in integrations with MetaMask.

Fixed fee model based on a percentage of the bridged amount (e.g., ~0.1-0.2%). This provides cost certainty for high-volume transfers, crucial for treasury operations and institutional arbitrage. Fees are paid in the source chain's native gas token, simplifying user experience.

Flat percentage fee can be expensive for small-value transfers compared to gas-only models. A $10 transfer incurs the same 0.1% rate as a $1M transfer, making it less competitive for retail users and micro-transactions common in gaming or social dApps.

Pay only for gas on source and destination chains for basic token transfers via General Message Passing (GMP). This can be significantly cheaper for small transfers, as fees scale with network congestion, not value. Ideal for frequent, low-value cross-chain interactions in DeFi composability.

Gas estimation complexity for advanced GMP calls with contract execution. Fees become variable and hard to predict, introducing budgeting uncertainty. Developers must manage relayers and gas payments on multiple chains, increasing operational overhead for complex dApps like cross-chain lending (e.g., using Squid Router).