Across Protocol excels at cost-effective, rapid finality because it leverages a unique architecture combining optimistic verification with a bonded relayer network. For example, its use of UMA's Optimistic Oracle allows for capital-efficient security, often resulting in lower fees and faster settlement (often under 5 minutes) for high-volume transfers on chains like Arbitrum and Optimism, as evidenced by its consistent top-tier TVL and volume rankings on platforms like DeFi Llama.
LABS
Comparisons
Across vs Hop: Pooled Liquidity
A technical comparison of Across Protocol and Hop Protocol, analyzing their pooled liquidity models, security architectures, cost structures, and ideal use cases for developers and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Pooled Liquidity Bridge Landscape
A data-driven comparison of Across and Hop Protocol, two leading models for cross-chain asset transfers.
Hop Protocol takes a different approach by creating canonical wrapped assets (hTokens) and utilizing AMMs across its spoke chains. This results in a trade-off of deeper native liquidity pools for established assets but introduces a multi-step process for users and potential slippage on the destination chain's AMM. Its model is highly effective for frequent, smaller swaps between its supported Layer 2s like Polygon and Gnosis Chain.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing cost and time for large, direct transfers between major rollups, choose Across. If you prioritize flexible, granular swaps across a broader set of connected chains and can manage the AMM interaction, choose Hop.
tldr-summary
Across vs Hop: Pooled Liquidity
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for bridging solutions at a glance.
01
Across: Optimistic Security Model
Relies on a single, bonded relayer and UMA's Optimistic Oracle: This creates a capital-efficient security layer where fraud is economically disincentivized. Finality is delayed (~20 min) for dispute resolution, but costs are typically lower. This matters for high-value, non-time-sensitive transfers where minimizing bridge-specific trust and cost is paramount.
02
Across: Unified Liquidity Pool
Single canonical pool (WETH/USDC) on Ethereum services all chains: Liquidity is not fragmented per destination. This maximizes capital efficiency and provides deep liquidity for major assets. This matters for protocol treasuries and large traders moving significant volume who need predictable, low-slippage swaps across many routes.
03
Hop: Native Token Fast Withdrawals
Uses bonded relayers and AMMs on each chain for instant guarantees: Users receive native assets (e.g., ETH on Arbitrum) in minutes by tapping into destination-chain liquidity. This matters for users and arbitrageurs who need immediate composability with dApps on the destination chain without a second wrapping step.
04
Hop: Multi-Chain AMM Network
Decentralized liquidity pools and relayers on each supported chain: Creates a mesh network where liquidity is locally sourced. This increases resilience and decentralization but fragments capital. This matters for ecosystems and DAOs prioritizing censorship resistance and supporting a wide array of assets (including LSTs like stETH) on each chain.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Across vs Hop: Pooled Liquidity Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key technical and economic metrics for cross-chain bridging solutions.
| Metric | Across Protocol | Hop Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Core Liquidity Model | Single Shared Pool (UMA Optimistic Oracle) | Bonded LP Pools per Chain Pair |
Avg. Bridge Time (Optimism→Arbitrum) | ~2-3 min | ~15-20 min |
Avg. Fee (Optimism→Arbitrum, $1000) | ~$0.50 | ~$2.50 |
Native Token Required for Fees | ||
Supports Arbitrary Messaging | ||
Supported Major Chains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Gnosis |
POOLED LIQUIDITY BRIDGE COMPARISON
Across vs Hop: Performance & Cost Benchmarks
Direct comparison of key technical and economic metrics for cross-chain bridges using pooled liquidity models.
| Metric | Across Protocol | Hop Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Bridge Time (Optimism) | ~1-3 min | ~20-30 min |
Avg. Bridge Cost (Optimism to Arbitrum) | $1-3 | $5-15 |
Supported Chains | 8+ | 6+ |
Native Gas Fee Coverage | ||
Capital Efficiency Model | Optimistic Verification | Bonded Liquidity Pools |
Primary Settlement Layer | Ethereum Mainnet | Ethereum L2s (Canonical Bridges) |
TVL in Bridge Pools | $200M+ | $50M+ |
pros-cons-a
Across vs Hop: Pooled Liquidity
Across Protocol: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading cross-chain liquidity solutions.
01
Across: Capital Efficiency
Relayer-based model: Uses a single-sided liquidity pool (like a bridge-as-a-service) with professional relayers competing to fulfill transfers. This means liquidity isn't locked in destination chains, enabling higher capital efficiency and deeper liquidity for major assets like ETH, USDC, and WBTC. This matters for large institutional transfers where minimizing idle capital is critical.
$2B+
Total Volume
~3 min
Avg. Fill Time
03
Hop: Unified Liquidity Pools
Bonded AMM Model: Uses canonical token pools (hTokens) on each chain with bonded liquidity providers (Bonders) who front liquidity for instant transfers, earning fees. This creates a unified, composable liquidity layer that works seamlessly with native AMMs like Uniswap and Curve. This matters for developers and arbitrageurs who need predictable, on-chain liquidity and direct integration with DeFi primitives.
10+
Supported Chains
pros-cons-b
Across vs Hop: Pooled Liquidity
Hop Protocol: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading cross-chain liquidity networks at a glance.
01
Hop's Strength: Capital Efficiency
Optimistic model with bonded relayers: Hop uses a system of bonded relayers to facilitate transfers, requiring significantly less locked capital per route than traditional liquidity pools. This allows for deeper liquidity across more chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Gnosis) without fragmenting TVL. This matters for protocols needing to move large volumes with minimal slippage.
02
Hop's Strength: Native Token Bridging
Direct canonical asset transfers: Hop specializes in moving native assets (e.g., ETH, MATIC) between their native chains via its hTokens intermediary system. This provides a more direct user experience for moving core assets compared to stablecoin-centric bridges. This matters for users and DAOs managing treasury assets across L2s.
03
Hop's Weakness: Centralization Risk
Relayer dependency: The network's security and liveness depend on a small set of permissioned, bonded relayers. While bonds provide economic security, it introduces a trust assumption and potential liveness failure if relayers go offline. This matters for protocols requiring maximally decentralized, censorship-resistant bridges.
04
Hop's Weakness: Slower Withdrawal Finality
Challenge period delay for L1 exits: Withdrawals from an L2 (like Arbitrum) back to Ethereum L1 are subject to a 7-day challenge period, mirroring the underlying rollup's fraud proof window. While instant liquidity is provided, users must wait for full finality. This matters for institutions or users requiring immediate, unconditional settlement.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
Across for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for large, value-driven cross-chain operations. Strengths: Leverages UMA's optimistic oracle and a single canonical bridge (like Arbitrum's native bridge) to move assets with deep, aggregated liquidity from protocols like Balancer and Uniswap. This results in lower effective fees for large transfers (>$10K) and superior capital efficiency for LPs. Ideal for protocols like Aave or Compound performing treasury rebalancing or for users bridging to access high-TVL DeFi on L2s.
Hop for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for frequent, small-to-medium transfers and composability. Strengths: Uses a network of canonical token wrapper bridges and its own AMMs on each chain for instant liquidity. Offers predictable, often lower fees for sub-$1K transfers and faster settlement for common assets (WETH, USDC, DAI). Its native integration with frontends and aggregators like Socket makes it the default for dApp user flows. Best for users frequently moving funds between L2s for yield farming or trading.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Across and Hop Protocol hinges on your application's tolerance for latency versus its need for capital efficiency and native asset bridging.
Across Protocol excels at cost-effective, near-instant finality because it leverages a unique architecture of off-chain relayers, on-chain bonded attestations, and a single canonical token pool on the destination chain. This results in significantly lower user fees and faster completion times for high-value transfers, as evidenced by its dominance in Total Value Secured (TVS), often exceeding $10B, and its role as a primary bridge for protocols like Uniswap and Aave.
Hop Protocol takes a different approach by employing a network of canonical wrapped assets (hTokens) and AMM-based liquidity pools on each connected chain. This strategy prioritizes capital efficiency for high-frequency, low-value transfers and direct bridging of native assets like ETH and MATIC, but introduces a trade-off: users experience longer wait times (often 20-60 minutes) for the canonical withdrawal period and must navigate a two-step swap process (asset to hToken, then hToken to canonical).
The key trade-off is speed and cost versus flexibility and native asset support. If your priority is minimizing latency and transaction fees for users, especially for large, time-sensitive arbitrage or institutional transfers, choose Across. Its model is optimized for this use case. If you prioritize enabling continuous, high-volume swaps of native assets (like ETH to Polygon) or building applications that require constant, granular liquidity access, choose Hop. Its AMM pools provide the necessary infrastructure for decentralized trading and composability.
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