Celer cBridge excels at near-instant finality by leveraging a liquidity pool model with off-chain validators. This design prioritizes user experience, enabling cross-chain transfers to be completed in seconds, often under 1-2 minutes, by utilizing pre-funded liquidity on the destination chain. This speed is ideal for high-frequency trading, arbitrage, and applications where user experience is paramount.
LABS
Comparisons
Celer cBridge vs Across: Confirmation Time
A technical comparison of Celer cBridge and Across Protocol, focusing on latency trade-offs, security models, and cost structures for engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Latency-Security Trade-off in Cross-Chain Bridges
A direct comparison of Celer cBridge and Across reveals a fundamental architectural choice between speed and security.
Across takes a different approach by employing a hybrid model that uses a decentralized relay network and optimistic verification. A transaction is relayed quickly using bonded relayers, but its validity is secured by a 20-minute optimistic verification window on Ethereum. This results in a trade-off: users experience a fast initial relay (often 1-3 minutes) but must wait for the security challenge period to lapse before funds are fully secured, introducing a latency floor for finality.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing user-perceived latency for applications like DEX swaps or gaming, choose Celer cBridge. If you prioritize maximizing cryptographic security guarantees and minimizing trust assumptions for high-value institutional transfers, choose Across, accepting its longer time-to-finality.
tldr-summary
Celer cBridge vs Across: Confirmation Time
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for cross-chain bridging speed.
01
Celer cBridge: Optimistic Confirmation
Near-instant user experience: Provides optimistic confirmation to the user in ~1-3 minutes, allowing dApps to update UIs immediately while finality occurs in the background. This matters for user-facing applications where perceived speed is critical, like gaming or trading interfaces.
02
Across: UMA Optimistic Oracle
Cryptoeconomically secured finality: Relies on the UMA Optimistic Oracle with a ~20-30 minute challenge period for dispute resolution. This provides strong, verifiable finality after the period, which matters for high-value institutional transfers or protocol treasury management where security is paramount over speed.
03
Celer's Trade-off: Liquidity Reliance
Speed depends on liquidity depth: The optimistic confirmation is backed by pre-funded liquidity pools on the destination chain. Slower final settlement can occur if liquidity is insufficient, requiring a fallback to slower canonical bridges. This matters for bridging large amounts or to newer chains with shallow liquidity.
04
Across's Trade-off: Fixed Latency
Predictable but slower guarantee: The ~30-minute latency for full finality is a fixed design constraint of the security model. This matters if your application logic requires on-chain proof of completion within a short time window, as you must build for this delay or use an intermediate state.
CONFIRMATION TIME ANALYSIS
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: Celer cBridge vs Across
Direct comparison of speed, cost, and security models for cross-chain transfers.
| Metric | Celer cBridge | Across |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Confirmation Time (Ethereum L1) | ~10-30 min | ~1-4 min |
Security & Speed Model | Validator-based (PoS) | Optimistic (UMA + Relayers) |
Finality Source | Source Chain Finality | Optimistic Oracle (UMA) |
Primary Use Case | General Messaging & Swaps | Fast Value Transfer |
Gas Cost on Destination | User Pays | Relayer Pays (Sponsored) |
Supported Chains | 40+ | 10+ |
Native Token Required | CELR (for staking) |
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS: LATENCY AND FINALITY
Celer cBridge vs Across: Confirmation Time
Direct comparison of key performance metrics for cross-chain bridging.
| Metric | Celer cBridge | Across Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Confirmation Time (Ethereum) | ~10-15 min | ~1-4 min |
Finality Model | Optimistic (with challenge period) | Optimistic (UMA oracle-verified) |
Native Gas Fee Coverage | ||
Relayer Network | Decentralized (SGN) | Decentralized (UMA Optimistic Oracle) |
Supported Chains | 40+ | 10+ |
Avg. Bridge Fee | 0.04% - 0.1% | 0.05% - 0.08% |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Celer cBridge vs Across: Confirmation Time
Key strengths and trade-offs for finality speed at a glance. Confirmation time is critical for user experience and capital efficiency.
01
Celer cBridge: Optimistic Finality
Fast optimistic confirmations: Celer provides near-instant user confirmation (1-2 minutes) by assuming relayers will act honestly, with a longer (~24-hour) challenge period for security. This matters for user-facing dApps where immediate feedback is essential, like gaming or NFT minting.
02
Celer cBridge: Trade-Off
Delayed finality for large sums: The security model means funds are not fully settled on the destination chain for ~24 hours. This matters for high-value institutional transfers or protocols that require absolute finality before utilizing bridged assets (e.g., as collateral in lending).
03
Across: UMA Optimistic Oracle
Deterministic, fast finality: Across uses the UMA Optimistic Oracle to provide a fixed, short (~20-minute) challenge window for dispute resolution. This matters for DeFi protocols that need predictable, relatively quick settlement for composability, like moving assets for arbitrage or liquidity provisioning.
04
Across: Trade-Off
Slower than pure optimistic models: The 20-minute wait, while secure, is slower than Celer's initial confirmation for the user. This matters for real-time applications where even a few minutes of latency degrades the experience, such as cross-chain payments or in-game item purchases.
pros-cons-b
Celer cBridge vs Across: Confirmation Time
Across Protocol: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for speed and finality at a glance.
01
Across: Optimistic Speed
Sub-second confirmations: Leverages optimistic verification and bonded relayers for near-instant user receipt on the destination chain. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) arbitrage and time-sensitive NFT minting where minutes matter.
< 1 min
Typical User Wait
02
Across: Capital Efficiency
No locked liquidity: Uses a single-sided liquidity pool model with on-chain settlement via UMA's Optimistic Oracle. This matters for liquidity providers (LPs) seeking higher yield without fragmentation and protocols wanting deeper available liquidity per chain.
$1.5B+
Total Volume
03
Celer cBridge: Proven Finality
Deterministic security: Uses a decentralized validator set with multi-party computation (MPC) for attestations, ensuring canonical finality before funds are released. This matters for institutional transfers and large-value DeFi operations where security is non-negotiable.
~10-30 min
Canonical Finality
04
Celer cBridge: Broad Network
Extensive chain support: One of the widest supported networks, including many emerging L2s and alt-L1s. This matters for multi-chain dApps and users operating across niche ecosystems like Arbitrum, zkSync, and Polygon zkEVM.
40+
Supported Chains
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Bridge
Celer cBridge for Speed
Verdict: Choose for predictable, fast transfers where you control the finality. Strengths: Uses native chain finality. On Optimistic Rollups like Arbitrum or Optimism, you can bridge in ~1-3 minutes after the L2 block is produced. For EVM L1s, speed depends on the source chain's block time (e.g., ~12s on Polygon). The process is direct from sender to receiver with no external relayers, minimizing hops. Trade-off: You must wait for the destination chain's confirmation. On high-congestion chains, this can be slower than optimistic systems.
Across for Speed
Verdict: The definitive choice for the fastest user experience from L2→Ethereum. Strengths: Leverages a optimistic validation model with bonded relayers. Users receive funds on Ethereum in ~1-2 minutes, regardless of the source chain's challenge period (e.g., bypassing Arbitrum's 7-day window). This is achieved via a liquidity pool on Ethereum and a "slow" fill → instant fill mechanism. Trade-off: Speed is asymmetric. It's optimized for withdrawals to Ethereum. Transfers between two L2s may not see the same dramatic advantage.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Celer cBridge and Across hinges on your protocol's tolerance for speed versus cost and security assumptions.
Celer cBridge excels at delivering near-instant confirmations for users by leveraging its State Guardian Network (SGN) and optimistic verification. This results in sub-2-minute user experiences for major routes like Ethereum to Arbitrum, as the SGN acts as a trusted intermediary to provide fast liquidity. However, this speed relies on a security model where users must trust the SGN's attestations during the challenge period, introducing a different trust vector compared to pure on-chain systems.
Across takes a fundamentally different approach by prioritizing capital efficiency and cryptographic security over pure speed. Its UMA-powered optimistic oracle and single-sided liquidity pools enable competitive fees, but finality is gated by a ~20-30 minute challenge window on Ethereum L1. This means users wait longer for confirmation, but the security is backed by economic guarantees and decentralized dispute resolution, making it attractive for high-value transfers where absolute trust minimization is critical.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user experience and speed for retail-facing dApps (e.g., gaming assets, frequent swaps), choose Celer cBridge. Its fast confirmations are a major UX win. If you prioritize security guarantees and cost-efficiency for institutional or high-value DeFi operations (e.g., cross-chain governance, large treasury moves), choose Across. Its slower, oracle-secured finality provides stronger cryptographic assurances aligned with Ethereum's security model.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
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