Gelato Network excels at decentralized, programmable automation because it leverages a network of permissionless relayers and smart contracts like Automate. For example, its infrastructure supports over 1.5 million automated tasks monthly across chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon, enabling complex, gasless workflows such as recurring payments or conditional limit orders without user intervention.
LABS
Comparisons
Gelato Network Relayers vs Biconomy Hyphen
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating infrastructure for gasless DAO voting. We analyze relay networks, paymaster services, developer SDKs, and pricing models to determine the optimal choice for on-chain and off-chain governance.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Infrastructure for Gasless Governance
Choosing between Gelato Network and Biconomy Hyphen defines how your protocol handles user onboarding and transaction execution.
Biconomy Hyphen takes a different approach by specializing in fast, low-cost cross-chain asset transfers. This results in a trade-off: while it's exceptionally optimized for bridging liquidity (processing billions in TVL with sub-3 minute finality), its scope is narrower than Gelato's generalized automation suite, focusing on a specific, critical use case for DeFi and gaming protocols.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building complex, automated on-chain workflows (e.g., gasless governance voting, scheduled treasury management), choose Gelato. If you prioritize seamless, affordable cross-chain liquidity movement as the core of your user experience, choose Biconomy Hyphen.
tldr-summary
Gelato Network vs Biconomy Hyphen
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for cross-chain messaging and automation at a glance.
02
Gelato: Multi-Chain Relayer Network
Decentralized execution layer: Operates a permissionless network of relayers (Gelato Ops) across 15+ EVM chains. This matters for dApp developers who need censorship-resistant, reliable transaction execution without managing their own infrastructure. It's the backbone for services like OpenZeppelin Defender.
15+
Supported Chains
03
Biconomy Hyphen: Fast & Cheap Bridges
Optimized for asset transfers: Hyphen is a specialized, liquidity-backed bridge focused on fast, low-cost cross-chain token transfers with near-instant confirmation on the destination chain. This matters for end-users and wallets (like MetaMask) where UX and low fees are critical for simple swaps between chains.
2-5 min
Typical Completion
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Gelato Relayers vs Biconomy Hyphen
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for cross-chain and automated transaction services.
| Metric | Gelato Network | Biconomy Hyphen |
|---|---|---|
Primary Use Case | Automated Smart Contract Execution & Gas Relaying | Cross-Chain Asset Transfers & Bridging |
Supported Chains | EVM (20+), Solana, Cosmos | EVM (15+), Polygon zkEVM, Starknet |
Avg. Bridge Time (Optimistic L2) | < 15 min | < 3 min |
Gas Abstraction Model | Gasless via Relay + Optional User-Paid | Gasless via Meta-Transactions |
Native Token Required | ||
Key Integration SDKs | Gelato SDK, OpenZeppelin Defender | Hyphen SDK, Biconomy Dashboard |
pros-cons-a
Relayer Infrastructure Comparison
Gelato Network Relayers vs Biconomy Hyphen
A data-driven breakdown of two leading meta-transaction and cross-chain bridging solutions. Choose based on your primary use case: automated smart contract execution or seamless asset transfers.
03
Gelato's Trade-off: Not for Simple Transfers
Specific limitation: It's an automation engine, not a generic bridge. Gelato is optimized for conditional logic and contract interactions, not for simple asset moves between chains.
- Consider if: Your use case is purely moving tokens from Chain A to Chain B. You'll pay for automation infrastructure you don't need. For pure bridging, a dedicated solution like Hyphen or Socket is more cost-effective.
04
Hyphen's Trade-off: Centralized Relayer Risk
Specific limitation: Relies on a more centralized relayer model for speed. While the contracts are non-custodial, the off-chain relayers are currently operated by Biconomy, creating a potential single point of failure.
- Consider if: Your protocol demands maximum decentralization and censorship resistance for core functions. Gelato's decentralized executor network may offer stronger guarantees for critical automated logic.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Biconomy Hyphen vs. Gelato Network Relayers
Key strengths and trade-offs for cross-chain infrastructure, based on architecture, cost, and use-case fit.
01
Biconomy Hyphen: Speed & User Experience
Optimized for speed: Uses a liquidity pool model for near-instant finality on destination chains (often < 5 mins). This matters for dApps prioritizing user experience, like gaming or payments, where waiting for traditional bridge confirmations is a deal-breaker.
02
Biconomy Hyphen: Gas Abstraction
Native meta-transactions: Users don't need the destination chain's gas token. This is critical for mass adoption and onboarding, allowing apps on Polygon to pay for user gas on Arbitrum seamlessly. Integrates with Biconomy's SDK for full stack abstraction.
03
Biconomy Hyphen: Cons & Trade-offs
Limited chain support: Primarily focused on major EVM chains (Polygon, BSC, Arbitrum). Not ideal for niche L2s or non-EVM ecosystems. Liquidity-dependent: Speed relies on pooled liquidity, which can fragment capital and impose limits on large transfers.
04
Gelato Relayers: Developer Flexibility
Generalized automation: Not just a bridge. Enables any smart contract function to be relayed via meta-transactions (ERC-2771) and automated. This matters for protocols needing custom logic (limit orders, vault harvests) beyond simple asset transfers.
05
Gelato Relayers: Decentralization & Security
Decentralized network of executors: Tasks are fulfilled by a permissionless network, reducing central point-of-failure risks. Uses 1Balance system for prepaid gas across 10+ chains. This is key for DeFi protocols where censorship resistance and reliability are paramount.
06
Gelato Relayers: Cons & Trade-offs
Higher complexity for simple transfers: For pure asset bridging, Gelato requires more integration work vs. a dedicated bridge SDK. Cost structure: 1Balance system requires upfront deposit management, adding operational overhead versus pure per-tx fee models.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Gelato Network for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for complex, automated cross-chain operations. Strengths: Unmatched for scheduled tasks and conditional logic (e.g., limit orders, yield harvesting, liquidation protection). Its Gelato Web3 Functions allow for arbitrary off-chain computation, enabling sophisticated DeFi strategies that Hyphen cannot replicate. Deeply integrated with major protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound. Ideal for protocols requiring automated maintenance (e.g., rebalancing, fee collection) across chains.
Biconomy Hyphen for DeFi
Verdict: Superior for simple, high-frequency asset bridging between a limited set of chains. Strengths: Lower latency for basic token transfers due to its liquidity pool model. Better for user-facing applications where the primary need is moving USDC, ETH, or other major assets between Ethereum, Polygon, and BNB Chain with a predictable fee and near-instant confirmation on the destination chain. Simpler integration for a single use case: bridging.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between Gelato and Biconomy Hyphen hinges on your application's core need: developer-centric automation or user-centric bridging.
Gelato Network excels at developer-centric, programmable automation because its core is a decentralized network of bots executing arbitrary smart contract logic. For example, its Automate product enables gasless limit orders on Uniswap v3 or automated vault rebalancing, with over 10 million tasks executed to date. This makes it the superior choice for protocols building complex, scheduled, or condition-based operations that require high reliability and censorship resistance.
Biconomy Hyphen takes a different approach by specializing in fast, low-cost cross-chain token bridging. This results in a trade-off: it is a highly optimized, single-purpose solution for asset transfers, but not a general-purpose automation platform. Its strength is in providing a seamless user experience with 2-5 minute finality for major chains like Polygon and BNB Chain, backed by its own liquidity pools to facilitate instant guarantees, making it ideal for dApps focused purely on cross-chain UX.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building complex, automated backend logic (e.g., keepers, yield harvesting, recurring payments) and you value a broad ecosystem (support for 10+ EVM chains, integrations with OpenZeppelin Defender), choose Gelato. If you prioritize optimizing the user experience for simple, fast asset transfers between a few major chains and want a plug-and-play bridging widget, choose Biconomy Hyphen.
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