Across excels at near-instant finality for users by leveraging a unique architecture of bonded relayers and optimistic verification. A user's funds are delivered on the destination chain within minutes, often seconds, because a third-party relayer fronts the capital immediately after validation on the origin chain. This speed is backed by a robust security model anchored by the UMA Optimistic Oracle, which acts as a decentralized fraud-proof system to settle disputes, typically with a 30-minute challenge window. The result is a user experience rivaling native chain transactions, with over $10B in total volume secured.
LABS
Comparisons
Across vs Stargate: Exit Delays
A technical analysis comparing the exit delay mechanisms of Across and Stargate bridges. We break down the trade-offs between trustless security and near-instant finality for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Latency-Security Trade-off in Cross-Chain Bridges
Choosing a cross-chain bridge often forces a fundamental choice between speed and security, a decision best illustrated by comparing Across and Stargate's exit delay mechanisms.
Stargate takes a different approach by employing a LayerZero-based Delta algorithm and a unified liquidity pool model, which introduces a variable but predictable exit delay for security. Instead of instant relay, transactions wait for a configurable number of block confirmations from the origin chain's LayerZero oracle (e.g., 15 blocks on Ethereum, ~3 minutes) to guarantee state finality before funds are released. This creates a deliberate latency-security trade-off: the delay provides cryptographic certainty against reorgs and double-spends, enhancing safety for the protocol's pooled liquidity, which often exceeds $400M in Total Value Locked (TVL).
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing user-facing latency and providing instant confirmation for applications like high-frequency trading or gaming, choose Across. If you prioritize maximizing cryptographic security guarantees and protecting large, pooled liquidity for generalized asset transfers, choose Stargate. The decision hinges on whether your application values speed of settlement or absolute finality assurance.
tldr-summary
Across vs Stargate: Exit Delays
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of finality and capital efficiency for cross-chain withdrawals.
01
Across: Optimistic Security Model
Faster Withdrawals: Leverages bonded relayers and optimistic verification for near-instant exits. This matters for high-frequency trading, arbitrage, and user experience where speed is critical.
02
Across: Capital Efficiency
Lower Liquidity Lockup: Uses a single-sided liquidity model with on-chain dispute resolution, reducing the capital required per transaction. This matters for protocols aiming to maximize TVL yield and for users seeking lower fees.
03
Stargate: Native Asset Delivery
Guaranteed Native Assets: Uses the LayerZero OFT standard to mint/burn canonical assets, ensuring you receive the native token on the destination chain. This matters for DeFi integrations and protocols that require canonical assets (e.g., native USDC).
04
Stargate: Unified Liquidity Pools
Simplified Routing: Employs a shared liquidity pool model ("Omnichain Fungible Token") for consistent pricing and availability across all supported chains. This matters for large, predictable transfers and stablecoin bridging where slippage is a primary concern.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Across vs Stargate: Exit Delays
Direct comparison of key bridging metrics, focusing on exit delays and security models.
| Metric | Across | Stargate |
|---|---|---|
Exit Delay (Optimistic Window) | ~20 minutes | ~1-2 minutes |
Security Model | Optimistic + Bonded Relayers | LayerZero + Delta Algorithm |
Native Gas on Destination | ||
Avg. Bridge Fee | ~0.1-0.3% | ~0.06% |
Supported Chains | 10+ (EVM L1/L2) | 15+ (Multi-VM) |
Total Value Secured | $1B+ | $10B+ |
CROSS-CHAIN BRIDGE LATENCY COMPARISON
Across vs Stargate: Exit Delays
Direct comparison of key performance metrics for cross-chain bridging, focusing on exit delays and costs.
| Metric | Across Protocol | Stargate Finance |
|---|---|---|
Average Exit Delay (Optimistic Rollup) | ~20 minutes | ~1-3 minutes |
Average Exit Delay (ZK Rollup) | ~20 minutes | ~1-3 minutes |
Average Exit Delay (L2 to L1) | ~20 minutes | ~1-3 minutes |
Base Bridge Fee (Ethereum Mainnet) | ~$5-15 | ~$10-25 |
Native Fast Withdrawal Support | ||
Time to Destination Chain Finality | ~5-10 minutes | ~1-3 minutes |
Supported Destination Chains | 15+ | 50+ |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Across vs Stargate: Exit Delays
A direct comparison of finality times for cross-chain transfers, a critical metric for DeFi and high-frequency applications.
01
Across: Speed Advantage
Optimistic verification enables near-instant finality. Transfers are relayed immediately based on optimistic proofs, with security enforced by a later dispute window. This results in sub-2 minute completion times for most major chains. This matters for arbitrage, liquidations, and time-sensitive payments where speed is capital.
02
Across: Capital Efficiency
Single-sided liquidity model with on-chain bond backstop. Liquidity providers (LPs) only need to post capital on the destination chain, reducing idle capital by ~50% compared to dual-sided pools. This efficiency often translates to lower effective fees for users on high-volume routes like Ethereum <> Arbitrum.
03
Stargate: Predictable Latency
LayerZero's guaranteed message delivery provides deterministic finality. Once the block is confirmed on the source chain and the Oracle/Relayer attest, the transfer is executed. This creates a consistent, predictable delay (e.g., ~15-30 mins for Ethereum finality) which is preferable for scheduled treasury operations or non-urgent asset bridging.
04
Stargate: Unified Liquidity Pools
Omnichain Fungible Tokens (OFT) standard and shared liquidity pools enable seamless swaps between chains in a single transaction. A user can swap USDC on Avalanche for USDT on Polygon directly. This matters for portfolio rebalancing and multi-chain DEX aggregation without intermediate steps.
pros-cons-b
Across vs Stargate: Exit Delays
Stargate: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for cross-chain bridging at a glance.
01
Stargate Pro: Near-Instant Finality
Leverages LayerZero's Ultra Light Nodes: Messages are validated on-chain by destination chain oracles/relayers, bypassing slow consensus mechanisms. This enables sub-2 minute finality for most transfers. This matters for high-frequency trading, arbitrage, and time-sensitive DeFi operations where waiting for native bridge confirmations is not viable.
02
Stargate Con: Centralized Security Assumptions
Relies on a permissioned set of Oracles and Relayers: Security is not derived from the underlying chains but from a designated, upgradable multisig. This introduces smart contract and governance risk. This matters for institutional users or protocols managing >$1M in TVL who prioritize maximal decentralization and censorship resistance over pure speed.
03
Across Pro: Optimistic Security Model
Uses bonded relayers with a fraud-proof window: The Hub (on Ethereum) acts as a single source of truth with a ~2 hour challenge period. This provides cryptoeconomic security backed by $50M+ in bonded collateral, making it highly resilient to liveness attacks. This matters for bridging large-value assets or serving as a canonical bridge for a Layer 2, where security is the primary non-negotiable.
04
Across Con: Mandated Exit Delay
Inherent 15-30 minute delay for all transfers: The optimistic verification model requires a fixed window for fraud proofs, creating a non-negotiable latency floor. This matters for retail users expecting instant swaps, NFT bridging, or interactive dApp experiences where user experience is paramount and speed trumps the marginal security gain for smaller amounts.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Decision Framework
Across for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for large, non-time-sensitive capital movements. Strengths: Unbeatable cost efficiency for large transfers due to its optimistic model and single-sided liquidity pools. Integrates with UMA's optimistic oracle for secure bridging of arbitrary data, enabling complex cross-chain actions. Ideal for protocols like Balancer or Aave managing treasury rebalancing or liquidity provisioning where saving thousands in fees outweighs a 20-30 minute delay. Weaknesses: The 20-30 minute exit delay (v2) is a deal-breaker for arbitrage, fast liquidations, or user-facing swaps.
Stargate for DeFi
Verdict: The default for composable, real-time DeFi operations. Strengths: Instant Guaranteed Finality is its killer feature. Enables atomic composability with dApps like LayerZero, Pendle, and Radiant Capital. Users can bridge USDC and immediately supply it as collateral in a single transaction. The unified liquidity model provides consistent rates across chains. Essential for any application where user experience and transaction atomicity are critical. Weaknesses: Higher fees than Across for large transfers; liquidity depth can vary per chain.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on the trade-offs between Across Protocol's optimistic security and Stargate's canonical bridge model for managing exit delays.
Across Protocol excels at minimizing user-perceived finality by leveraging optimistic validation and a decentralized relay network. Its core innovation is the Across V3 architecture, which uses bonded relayers and a single optimistic challenge period on the destination chain. This results in near-instantaneous transfers for users, with funds arriving in seconds, while the security dispute window (e.g., 30 minutes on Optimism) is handled in the background. For example, this model has processed billions in TVL with a median transfer time under 4 minutes, making it ideal for time-sensitive arbitrage or liquidations.
Stargate Finance takes a different approach by operating as a canonical bridge built on the LayerZero omnichain protocol. It uses a decentralized oracle network and an on-chain verifier for instant, guaranteed finality. This eliminates the optimistic delay entirely but introduces a different trade-off: higher gas costs for the on-chain proof verification and a dependency on the security of the LayerZero message layer. Its Unified Liquidity Pools and deep integration with major DeFi protocols like Aave and Curve make it powerful for complex cross-chain composability.
The key trade-off is between speed with optimistic security and instant, verifiable finality with higher cost/complexity. If your priority is user experience for fast, low-cost asset transfers where a short background delay is acceptable, choose Across. If you prioritize guaranteed atomic finality for complex, multi-step DeFi operations and are willing to pay slightly higher gas for on-chain verification, choose Stargate. For most dApps focused on simple asset bridging, Across's model offers superior UX; for protocols building intricate cross-chain money legos, Stargate's canonical guarantees are critical.
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