Hop Protocol excels at providing near-instant withdrawals by utilizing a network of bonded relayers and its own canonical hTokens. This model bypasses the native bridge's delay by allowing users to swap assets into a liquidity pool on the destination chain immediately. For example, a user bridging from Arbitrum to Polygon can receive funds in under 10 minutes, compared to the 7-day optimistic rollup challenge period. This speed is powered by deep liquidity pools and a system of automated market makers (AMMs) like Uniswap and Curve.
LABS
Comparisons
Hop vs Across: Withdrawal Speed
A technical comparison of Hop Protocol and Across Protocol, focusing on withdrawal speed, latency trade-offs, and architectural decisions for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Speed vs. Security Bridge Dilemma
Choosing between Hop and Across for cross-chain withdrawals forces a fundamental choice between near-instant finality and battle-tested security.
Across Protocol takes a different approach by prioritizing security and capital efficiency through a single, unified liquidity pool and decentralized relayers. It uses a UMA-based optimistic oracle to validate transfers, which introduces a short delay (typically 5-20 minutes) for fraud proofs but ensures the security model is anchored to Ethereum's base layer. This results in a trade-off: slightly slower finality than Hop in exchange for lower systemic risk and often lower fees for large transfers, as seen in its dominant TVL of over $500M.
The key trade-off: If your protocol's priority is user experience and speed for sub-$100K transfers—such as for a gaming or social dApp—choose Hop. If you prioritize security and cost-efficiency for large, institutional-scale transfers or value the cryptographic guarantees of Ethereum's consensus, choose Across.
tldr-summary
Hop vs Across: Withdrawal Speed
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for finality and user experience.
01
Hop: Optimistic Rollup Speed
Fast, predictable exits for L2s: Leverages native bridge liquidity on Optimistic Rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism) for sub-1 minute withdrawals to L1. This matters for users who prioritize speed and cost when moving assets between major L2s and Ethereum.
< 1 min
Typical L2→L1 Time
02
Hop: Multi-L2 Hops
Single-transaction L2-to-L2 transfers: Enables direct bridging between two L2s (e.g., Arbitrum → Polygon) without waiting for L1 finality. This matters for protocols and power users managing liquidity across multiple rollup ecosystems.
03
Across: Optimistic Oracle Finality
Near-instant L1 guarantees: Uses UMA's Optimistic Oracle to provide a cryptoeconomic guarantee of relay correctness within minutes, not days. This matters for institutions and large traders who cannot accept the 7-day challenge period risk of native Optimistic Rollup bridges.
~2-5 min
Guarantee Time
04
Across: Capital Efficiency
Single-sided liquidity pools: Relayers compete to fulfill transfers using a unified liquidity model on the destination chain, reducing capital lock-up. This matters for liquidity providers and protocols seeking higher capital efficiency and better rates for large, cross-chain transactions.
HOP VS ACROSS COMPARISON
Head-to-Head: Withdrawal Speed & Architecture
Direct comparison of withdrawal speed, security models, and cost structures for cross-chain bridging.
| Metric | Hop Protocol | Across Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Time to Destination (Optimistic L2) | ~7 days | < 4 minutes |
Core Security Model | Bonded Relayers | Optimistic Oracle (UMA) |
Native Gas Fee on Destination | User pays | Relayer pays (Gasless) |
Supported Chains | 6+ (L2s, Sidechains) | 10+ (L2s, L1s, Alt-L1s) |
Avg. Bridge Fee (ETH Mainnet -> Arbitrum) | ~0.05% | ~0.05% |
Capital Efficiency | Requires Liquidity Pools | Uses Existing L1 Liquidity |
pros-cons-a
BRIDGE BATTLEGROUND
Hop Protocol vs. Across Protocol: Withdrawal Speed
A direct comparison of finality times for cross-chain withdrawals, focusing on the core mechanisms that determine how fast users get their funds.
01
Hop: Optimistic Speed
Uses canonical bridges for finality: Relies on the underlying L1 bridge (e.g., Arbitrum's 7-day challenge window, Optimism's 7-day window). This creates a variable wait time from minutes to days for full economic security. The Hop front-end shows an estimated "optimistic" arrival time, but the safe withdrawal period is much longer.
~15 min
Front-End Estimate
1-7 days
Full Security
02
Across: Relayer-First Finality
Uses bonded relayers and optimistic oracle: A relayer sends funds immediately upon verification, assuming the risk. Disputes are handled later via UMA's oracle. This decouples user receipt from chain finality, providing consistent, fast completion regardless of the source chain's withdrawal delay.
< 4 min
Median Completion
~2 min
Fastest 10%
03
Hop's Trade-off: Capital Efficiency
Pros: The model is capital efficient for the protocol, as liquidity providers (LPs) aren't on the hook for instant sends. Cons for Users: To bypass the slow finality, users must trust Hop's Bonder to front the capital, which may charge a premium and is not always available for all routes/amounts.
04
Across's Trade-off: Security Assumptions
Pros: User experience is superior with predictably fast withdrawals. Cons: Security model introduces additional trust assumptions in the relayer network and the UMA oracle. While economically secured by bonds, it's a different risk profile than waiting for L1 finality.
05
Choose Hop If...
You are cost-sensitive and willing to wait for the canonical bridge delay for maximum security, or you are moving assets on routes with deep Bonder liquidity (like ETH on Arbitrum). Ideal for non-time-sensitive treasury movements.
06
Choose Across If...
Withdrawal speed is critical for your application (e.g., arbitrage, liquidations, user-facing withdrawals). You prioritize a consistent sub-5 minute UX and accept the security model of bonded relayers. Best for DEX users and reactive DeFi strategies.
pros-cons-b
PROTOCOL COMPARISON
Hop vs Across: Withdrawal Speed
A side-by-side analysis of finality times for cross-chain withdrawals. Speed is a function of security models and liquidity depth.
01
Hop Protocol: Optimistic Speed
Fast, bonded exits: Uses bonded relayers for instant withdrawals, typically under 1 minute for major L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism. This speed is achieved by fronting liquidity from the Hop Bonder and assuming a 1-hour challenge window for fraud proofs.
Trade-off: The "instant" receipt is an IOU (hTokens). To claim native assets on the destination chain, you must wait for the challenge period or trust the bonder's solvency.
< 1 min
Typical Withdrawal
1 hour
Fraud Proof Window
02
Hop Protocol: Liquidity Dependency
Speed requires deep pools: Withdrawal latency can increase if the destination chain's liquidity pool is depleted. The system relies on AMM pools (e.g., on Polygon, Gnosis Chain) for token swaps, which can incur slippage and delay during high volume.
Best for: High-frequency, lower-value transfers between EVM-compatible rollups where users prioritize initial receipt speed over immediate native asset settlement.
03
Across Protocol: Optimistic + Relayer Race
Deterministic, competitive finality: Uses a single, configurable challenge period (e.g., 20-30 mins for many chains) after which funds are released instantly via a permissionless relayer network. The first relayer to fulfill the validated request earns a fee.
Trade-off: No "instant" IOU. The user waits for the full challenge period, but then receives native assets directly with no additional steps. This model is secured by UMA's optimistic oracle.
~20-30 min
Typical Finality
Direct
Native Asset Delivery
04
Across Protocol: Consistency Over Peak Speed
Predictable timing, less volatility: Finality time is a function of the predefined challenge window, not fluctuating liquidity. This creates a more consistent UX for large transfers. The protocol's single-sided liquidity pools (like on Ethereum mainnet) are sourced from bridge providers (e.g., Connext, Arbitrum) and are not directly tapped by users for speed.
Best for: Larger, security-sensitive transfers (DeFi, institutional) where predictable settlement and direct native asset receipt are more critical than sub-minute initial acknowledgment.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Hop Protocol for Speed
Verdict: Choose Hop for near-instant withdrawals on its native chains. Hop's primary advantage is its Optimistic Rollup model on its native chains (Optimism, Arbitrum, Polygon zkEVM), where liquidity is pre-positioned. This enables 1-3 minute withdrawals for supported assets, as the protocol can instantly credit the user on the destination chain and settle later. For chains like Arbitrum Nova, withdrawals can be as fast as 8 minutes. This model is ideal for users and bots requiring predictable, sub-10-minute finality.
Across Protocol for Speed
Verdict: Choose Across for the fastest possible cross-chain message delivery, especially to Ethereum L1. Across leverages a uniquely fast relayer network and a single, canonical UMA Optimistic Oracle. Once a user's funds are bonded by a relayer on the destination chain (often within minutes), the message is considered final. This allows Across to achieve ~5-15 minute withdrawals to Ethereum Mainnet, significantly outperforming native bridge wait times of 7 days for Optimistic Rollups. For pure speed of message attestation, Across's architecture is superior.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the speed vs. cost-efficiency trade-off between Hop and Across for cross-chain withdrawals.
Hop Protocol excels at providing predictable, fast withdrawals for users and integrators by leveraging its own liquidity pools and a bonded relay network. For example, transfers from Arbitrum to Ethereum via Hop typically complete in under 15 minutes, offering a consistent experience for applications like NFT bridging or urgent stablecoin transfers where time is a primary constraint.
Across Protocol takes a different approach by utilizing a competitive, auction-based model with a network of relayers. This results in a variable speed-to-cost trade-off; while the fastest relays can be near-instant, the standard experience prioritizes cost efficiency, often resulting in longer wait times (e.g., 10-30+ minutes) for the most economical route, as seen in its integration with protocols like UMA for optimistic verification.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable, developer-friendly speed for a seamless user experience, choose Hop. If you prioritize minimizing gas costs and fees for your users and can tolerate variable completion times, choose Across. For high-frequency, time-sensitive dApp interactions, Hop's consistency is superior. For batch operations or value transfers where cost savings are paramount, Across's model is strategically advantageous.
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