Across Protocol excels at cost-effective, fast value transfer by leveraging a single canonical bridge for the destination chain (e.g., Arbitrum's native bridge) and a decentralized network of relayers to fulfill transactions. This architecture minimizes canonical bridge latency and gas costs for users. For example, its unique model has facilitated over $10B in volume with users often paying less than $5 in fees for large transfers, as it primarily pays for the destination-chain gas.
LABS
Comparisons
Across vs cBridge: Liquidity Strategy
A technical comparison of Across Protocol's optimistic verification and cBridge's liquidity pool model, analyzing trade-offs in capital efficiency, security, and cost for enterprise adoption.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Divide
Across and cBridge represent two distinct philosophies for cross-chain liquidity, defined by their core routing and security models.
cBridge (Celer Network) takes a different approach by operating a vast, liquidity-backed network of nodes. It uses a state guardian network for security and routes transfers through its own liquidity pools across chains. This results in a trade-off: it offers superior support for long-tail assets and complex chains, but liquidity fragmentation can sometimes lead to higher slippage or fees compared to Across's single-bridge model for major assets on well-supported chains.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing cost and latency for high-volume transfers on major EVM chains (like Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism), choose Across. If you prioritize broad chain coverage and asset diversity, requiring transfers across 40+ blockchains including non-EVM ecosystems like Cosmos or Polkadot, choose cBridge.
tldr-summary
Across vs cBridge: Liquidity Strategy
TL;DR: The 30-Second Summary
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Across: Capital Efficiency
Relies on a single liquidity pool (UMA's Optimistic Oracle): Uses a unified pool of USDC, reducing fragmented capital requirements. This matters for high-value, cross-chain DeFi transactions where minimizing idle liquidity is critical. The model is validated by over $10B+ in total volume.
$10B+
Total Volume
02
Across: Speed for Major Chains
Optimistic verification enables fast finality on supported routes: Transactions to/from Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Optimism can settle in ~1-4 minutes. This matters for arbitrageurs and users prioritizing speed on primary L2s. It's slower for less integrated chains.
03
cBridge: Network Breadth
Supports 40+ blockchains via a multi-pool model: Offers direct liquidity pools across a vast array of EVM and non-EVM chains (e.g., Polygon, BNB Chain, Avalanche, Cosmos via Axelar). This matters for protocols building on emerging chains or requiring multi-chain reach.
40+
Chains
04
cBridge: Granular Liquidity Control
LPs can allocate capital to specific chain pairs: Liquidity providers can target high-yield routes, creating deeper pools for popular corridors. This matters for institutions or DAOs managing treasury bridges and for ensuring competitive rates on niche routes.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Across vs cBridge: Liquidity Strategy
Direct comparison of core liquidity and operational models for cross-chain bridging.
| Metric | Across | cBridge |
|---|---|---|
Core Liquidity Model | Optimistic Pooled Liquidity | Canonical Token Pools |
Capital Efficiency | High (Single-Sided Liquidity) | Lower (Dual-Sided Required) |
Primary Security Layer | Ethereum Mainnet (UMA Optimistic Oracle) | Source Chain Native Bridge |
Supported Chains | 10+ (EVM Focus) | 30+ (Multi-VM) |
Typical Bridge Fee | 0.1% - 0.5% | 0.04% - 0.1% |
Native Gas Refund | ||
Instant Liquidity Guarantee |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Across vs cBridge: Liquidity Strategy
A data-driven comparison of how Across Protocol and cBridge (Celer Network) approach liquidity, the core engine of any cross-chain bridge.
01
Across: Capital Efficiency
Relayer-based model: Uses a single liquidity pool on the destination chain, funded by professional relayers. This concentrates capital, enabling high-volume transfers with lower total value locked (TVL). For example, a $10M TVL pool can facilitate billions in volume annually. This matters for protocols seeking high throughput without requiring massive liquidity incentives.
02
Across: Optimistic Security
Fraud-proof window with bonded relayers: Transactions are finalized optimistically, with a 30-minute dispute period. Relay nodes post bonds (staked ETH) as collateral, which are slashed for malicious behavior. This creates a strong cryptoeconomic security model that is cheaper to operate than continuous on-chain verification, reducing costs for end-users.
03
cBridge: Liquidity Depth & Flexibility
Canonical token pools with Celer's State Guardian Network (SGN): Liquidity is provided in canonical pools on each supported chain (e.g., USDC on Arbitrum, USDC on Polygon). This provides deep, chain-native liquidity and supports a wider range of assets (100+). This matters for users and DAOs needing to bridge long-tail assets or requiring instant liquidity on many chains.
04
cBridge: Speed & Finality
Near-instant confirmation via off-chain attestation: The SGN validators attest to transfers off-chain, providing confirmation in seconds, with on-chain settlement following later. This offers a superior user experience (UX) for time-sensitive transactions like arbitrage or gaming, where waiting for an optimistic window is not feasible.
pros-cons-b
Across vs cBridge: Liquidity Strategy
cBridge: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs of cBridge's liquidity model at a glance.
01
Pro: Deep, Multi-Chain Liquidity Pools
Capital efficiency through concentrated pools: cBridge aggregates liquidity into dedicated pools on each supported chain (e.g., USDC on Arbitrum, USDC on Polygon). This model allows for large, single-transaction transfers, handling $100M+ daily volume across 50+ chains. This matters for institutional transfers and high-frequency traders who need predictable, large-capacity swaps.
02
Pro: Relayer-Based Speed & Finality
Optimistic verification for near-instant confirmation: cBridge uses a network of permissioned relayers to facilitate transfers off-chain, providing users with sub-2-minute finality for most assets. This is faster than waiting for on-chain challenge periods. This matters for DEX aggregators and user-facing apps where a fast UX is critical to prevent front-running and user drop-off.
03
Con: Centralized Liquidity Reliance & Slippage
Pool-dependent pricing can lead to higher costs: Liquidity is fragmented per chain-pair. For a less common route (e.g., MATIC on Gnosis to AVAX), you may face thin liquidity, higher slippage, or failed transactions. This contrasts with atomic swap models. This matters for emerging chains or long-tail assets, where finding a deep pool is less likely.
04
Con: Censorship & Relayer Risk Surface
Vulnerability to relayer coordination and regulatory action: The network of permissioned relayers is a potential point of failure. While decentralized in count, they could theoretically censor transactions or be compelled to freeze funds. This matters for protocols requiring maximum censorship resistance or those operating in jurisdictions with high regulatory scrutiny.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Across for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for capital efficiency and protocol-native yield. Strengths: Across's single-sided liquidity model is a game-changer. Liquidity providers (LPs) deposit only into a single pool on Ethereum, earning yield from Spoke Pool fees and UMA's oSnap optimistic governance rewards. This eliminates fragmented capital across chains and reduces LP risk. For protocols like Aave, Compound, or Uniswap needing to bridge governance tokens or liquidity, Across offers superior capital efficiency and predictable, low fees via its optimistic oracle-secured system.
cBridge for DeFi
Verdict: The robust, high-liquidity workhorse for large, instant transfers. Strengths: cBridge's canonical token bridging with deep, multi-chain liquidity pools (powered by Celer's State Guardian Network) is ideal for large, time-sensitive arbitrage, collateral movement, or protocol treasury management. Its support for over 40+ chains and integration with dApps like Synapse, Stargate, and Multichain (via Celer IM) makes it a versatile plumbing layer. Choose cBridge when your primary need is maximum liquidity depth and instantaneous settlement for major assets like USDC, ETH, and WBTC.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Across and cBridge hinges on your protocol's core need: capital efficiency or maximal liquidity.
Across excels at capital efficiency and low user costs because of its innovative single-sided liquidity model and optimistic verification. By leveraging a network of on-chain relayers and a UMA-powered oracle, it minimizes locked capital and passes the savings to users. For example, its canonical bridge for USDC from Ethereum to Arbitrum consistently shows fees 20-30% lower than many competitors, a direct result of its efficient design.
cBridge takes a different approach by aggregating deep liquidity from multiple sources, including its own Celer liquidity pools and other major bridges. This strategy results in superior support for long-tail assets and complex chains, but requires more capital to be locked across its network. Its TVL, often exceeding $200 million, funds this broad coverage, enabling seamless transfers for assets like stETH to chains like Polygon zkEVM that others may not support natively.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing end-user cost and optimizing for high-volume, mainstream asset transfers on major L2s, choose Across. Its architecture is built for this. If you prioritize maximum reach and flexibility, needing to bridge a diverse portfolio of assets across a wider array of emerging and established chains, choose cBridge. Its aggregated liquidity model is your strategic advantage.
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