Stargate excels at providing predictable, low-cost transfers for major assets by leveraging its native STG-secured liquidity pools and LayerZero's omnichain messaging. For example, a recent transfer of 1 ETH from Arbitrum to Optimism costs a user ~$1.50 in gas and a ~0.06% fee, with finality in minutes. This model prioritizes cost efficiency and speed for high-volume, established routes like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon, making it ideal for routine, value-driven transfers.
LABS
Comparisons
Stargate vs Synapse: User Fees
A technical breakdown of user-facing fee models for Stargate and Synapse bridges, analyzing gas costs, liquidity fees, and total transaction cost for developers and DeFi users.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Cost of Cross-Chain Liquidity
A direct comparison of user fee structures between Stargate Finance and Synapse Protocol reveals foundational trade-offs in cross-chain design.
Synapse takes a different approach with its nUSD stablecoin-based AMM model, which can offer superior rates for niche assets or imbalanced routes but at the cost of higher and more variable fees. Its fee is a dynamic combination of a bridge fee (often 0.10%-0.25%) and the slippage from swapping into/out of nUSD within the destination chain's pool. This results in a trade-off: better effective rates for exotic chains or large, imbalanced transfers, but potentially higher and less predictable costs for simple stablecoin moves on popular networks.
The key trade-off: If your priority is low, predictable fees for high-liquidity assets on major EVM chains, choose Stargate. If you prioritize access to a broader set of chains (including Solana, Avalanche C-Chain, and non-EVMs) or need to move large, imbalanced volumes, Synapse's AMM model may provide better net value despite higher base fees. Your chain support matrix and typical transfer size dictate the economically superior protocol.
tldr-summary
Stargate vs Synapse: User Fees
TL;DR: Core Fee Differentiators
A direct comparison of fee structures, predictability, and hidden costs for cross-chain transfers.
01
Stargate: Predictable, All-Inclusive Fees
Fixed-fee model: Fees are quoted upfront and include gas on the destination chain. This eliminates surprise costs and simplifies budgeting for high-frequency traders and protocols like LayerZero-based dApps.
- Example: Swapping 1,000 USDC from Arbitrum to Polygon might cost a flat $1.50, covering all gas.
- Best for: Businesses requiring predictable operational costs and users prioritizing fee certainty over absolute lowest cost.
02
Stargate: Native Gas Abstraction
No destination gas tokens needed: Users don't need to hold native tokens (e.g., MATIC, AVAX) on the target chain to complete the transfer. This drastically improves UX for new users and simplifies liquidity provisioning for protocols like Radiant Capital and Rage Trade.
- Trade-off: This convenience is baked into the fixed fee, which can be higher than the raw gas cost in low-congestion periods.
03
Synapse: Dynamic, Optimized Fees
Variable fee model: Fees are calculated based on real-time gas prices and liquidity pool depths. This can lead to lower costs during non-peak times or for routes with deep liquidity (e.g., Ethereum ⇄ Arbitrum).
- Example: The same 1,000 USDC swap might cost $0.80 when network activity is low.
- Best for: Cost-sensitive users, MEV bots, and protocols like Frax Finance that can batch transactions during optimal windows.
04
Synapse: Potential for Hidden Gas Costs
User pays destination gas: The quoted bridge fee often excludes the gas required for the final transaction on the destination chain. Users must hold the native gas token, adding complexity and unpredictable final cost.
- Impact: A swap to a new chain requires a separate step to acquire gas tokens, hurting UX. This is a critical consideration for consumer dApps and wallets integrating bridge functionality.
USER FEES HEAD-TO-HEAD
Stargate vs Synapse: Fee Model Comparison
Direct comparison of key fee metrics for cross-chain bridging.
| Metric | Stargate | Synapse |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Bridge Fee (ETH → Arbitrum) | 0.06% | 0.05% |
Gas Fee Abstraction | ||
Minimum Fee Threshold | $1 | None |
Dynamic Fee Model | ||
Fee Paid In Source Chain Gas | ||
Native Gas Refuel Feature | ||
Supported Chains | 15+ | 16+ |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Stargate vs Synapse: User Fee Analysis
A data-driven breakdown of fee structures, predictability, and total cost of ownership for cross-chain transfers.
01
Stargate's Predictable Fee Model
Fixed-fee structure based on destination chain gas costs and a small protocol fee. This provides high cost predictability for users and integrators, crucial for DeFi protocols like Lido and Radiant Capital that require stable operational costs. Fees are paid in the source chain's native gas token.
02
Synapse's Dynamic Fee & Incentives
Two-part fee model: a variable bridge fee + gas reimbursement on the destination chain. The bridge fee is algorithmically adjusted based on liquidity pool imbalances. Users often receive SYN token emissions as a rebate, which can significantly offset costs, especially for high-volume routes like Ethereum-to-Arbitrum.
03
Stargate's Cost Inefficiency for Small Tx
The fixed overhead for security and messaging can make small transfers (<$1k) proportionally expensive. For example, bridging a small amount of USDC from Arbitrum to Polygon may cost a higher percentage than on alternative bridges, making it less ideal for retail users or micro-transactions.
04
Synapse's Fee Volatility Risk
The dynamic bridge fee can spike during periods of high arbitrage activity or liquidity shortages, leading to unpredictable final costs. This is a trade-off for its capital efficiency and can complicate budgeting for enterprise users or automated systems that require strict cost ceilings.
pros-cons-b
Stargate vs Synapse
Synapse Fee Model: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of fee structures for cross-chain bridging, highlighting key trade-offs for protocol architects.
01
Stargate: Predictable, Fixed Fees
Fixed Fee Model: Charges a flat, predictable fee per transaction, typically ranging from $5-$15. This simplifies cost forecasting for high-volume protocols like GMX and Radiant Capital.
Advantage: Budget certainty for treasury management and user experience. No surprises for large transfers.
02
Stargate: LayerZero Fee Integration
Direct Oracle Fee Payment: Fees are paid directly to the LayerZero protocol for security (Oracle/Relayer). This creates a clean, auditable cost structure but adds a fixed overhead.
Trade-off: Less flexibility for dynamic pricing, but ensures underlying infrastructure is compensated.
03
Synapse: Dynamic, Market-Based Fees
Liquidity-Based Pricing: Fees adjust dynamically based on destination chain liquidity pools and market volatility. During high demand, fees can spike to $50+ to protect the bridge's economic security.
Advantage: Efficiently allocates capital and protects LP yields, crucial for supporting 60+ chains.
04
Synapse: Slippage & Gas Subsidy
Integrated Slippage Cost: The quoted fee often includes an implicit cost for slippage within the AMM pools, unlike pure message bridges.
Gas Subsidy Model: Synapse frequently subsidizes gas on destination chains (e.g., Ethereum), reducing the user's post-bridge transaction cost. This improves UX for end-users.
STARGATE VS SYNAPSE: USER FEES
Real-World Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of key cost and efficiency metrics for cross-chain bridging.
| Metric | Stargate Finance | Synapse Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Bridge Fee (USDC, Ethereum to Arbitrum) | $5 - $15 | $1 - $5 |
Gas Fee on Source Chain (Ethereum) | ~$10 - $30 | ~$10 - $30 |
Native Gas Abstraction | ||
Time to Destination (Ethereum to Arbitrum) | ~3 - 5 min | ~5 - 10 min |
Supported Chains (Primary) | 15+ | 16+ |
Fee Structure | Dynamic (Gas + Protocol Fee) | Dynamic (Gas + Liquidity Fee) |
Direct Stablecoin Swaps |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Based on User Profile
Stargate for DeFi
Verdict: The default for large-scale, multi-chain liquidity. Choose Stargate if your protocol requires deep, unified liquidity pools and battle-tested composability. Strengths:
- Deep TVL & Composability: Over $400M in TVL. Native integration with major DEXs like Uniswap, Curve, and Aave via LayerZero's OFT standard enables seamless cross-chain DeFi lego.
- Unified Pools: Single-sided liquidity provision simplifies LP management across chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, and BSC.
- Fee Predictability: Fees are a fixed percentage of the transfer amount, making cost estimation straightforward for high-value transactions. Considerations: The Stargate DAO fee model can be less competitive for small, frequent transfers common in user-facing dApps.
Synapse for DeFi
Verdict: Optimal for custom asset bridging and permissionless liquidity. Choose Synapse if you need to bridge niche assets or bootstrap liquidity for a new chain. Strengths:
- Flexible Asset Support: The Synapse Bridge supports a wider array of assets (including many non-standard tokens) via its AMM-based nUSD/nETH pools.
- Permissionless Pools: Anyone can create a liquidity pool for a new asset, enabling faster support for emerging chains like Scroll or Blast.
- Dynamic Fees: Fees adjust based on pool liquidity and demand, which can be cheaper for moving assets on less congested chains. Considerations: The AMM model can introduce slippage for large trades, and liquidity can be fragmented compared to Stargate's unified pools.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between Stargate and Synapse for user fees depends on your protocol's core priorities: predictable, stable costs or dynamic, market-driven efficiency.
Stargate excels at providing predictable and stable fees for users because it employs a unified liquidity model with a fixed fee structure. For example, a cross-chain transfer via Stargate's LayerZero protocol typically incurs a base fee of 0.06% of the transfer amount plus a small gas fee, offering clear cost visibility. This model is ideal for applications like stablecoin transfers or recurring payroll where users and businesses require budget certainty.
Synapse takes a different approach by using a dynamic fee model powered by its AMM pools. This results in fees that fluctuate based on real-time liquidity depth and demand, creating a trade-off between potential cost efficiency and predictability. During periods of low congestion, fees can be lower than Stargate's fixed rate, but they can spike during high-volume events or for bridging less liquid assets.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user experience and cost predictability for high-frequency, stable-value transfers, choose Stargate. If you prioritize maximizing capital efficiency and lower potential costs for users, especially for a diverse asset portfolio, and can tolerate fee variability, choose Synapse. The decision hinges on whether your protocol values the stability of a toll bridge or the market efficiency of a decentralized exchange.
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