Across excels at cost-effective, rapid settlements by leveraging a unique model of bonded relayers and a single-side liquidity pool on Ethereum, optimized by the UMA Optimistic Oracle. For example, its architecture often results in lower effective fees for users compared to canonical bridges, with transaction finality often under 2-5 minutes, as validated by its leading position in MEV-protected volume on platforms like L2Beat.
LABS
Comparisons
Across vs Stargate: EVM Liquidity Bridges
A technical comparison of Across and Stargate, two leading EVM liquidity bridges. We analyze their architectures, performance, costs, and trade-offs to help CTOs and protocol architects make an informed decision.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for EVM Liquidity
Across and Stargate represent two dominant, philosophically distinct approaches to bridging assets between EVM chains, forcing architects to choose between capital efficiency and ecosystem breadth.
Stargate takes a different approach by building a unified liquidity pool using LayerZero's omnichain messaging, enabling native asset transfers with guaranteed finality. This results in a trade-off of higher capital lockup for superior composability; its "unified pool" model is directly integrated into major DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, and Pendle for seamless cross-chain operations.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing user cost and settlement latency for high-frequency or value-sensitive transfers, choose Across. If you prioritize broad ecosystem integration, native asset bridging, and direct composability with top-tier DeFi applications, choose Stargate.
tldr-summary
Across vs Stargate: EVM Liquidity Bridges
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Across: Cost & Speed Leader
Optimistic verification model: Relayers front funds and settle via a slow, dispute-based root chain. This enables ~2-5 minute transfers with fees often 50-80% lower than competitors. This matters for high-frequency arbitrage, large institutional transfers, and cost-sensitive DeFi users. The model relies on a bonded relay network and UMA's optimistic oracle for security.
~2-5 min
Typical Transfer
50-80%
Fee Savings
02
Across: Native ETH & WETH Simplicity
Direct canonical asset bridging: Uniquely supports transferring native ETH (not just WETH) between rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism without wrapping. This matters for protocols and users who require gas-efficient, direct interaction with native ETH, avoiding extra contract calls and potential liquidity fragmentation. Simplifies the user experience for L2-native applications.
03
Stargate: Unified Liquidity Pools
Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) Standard & Delta Algorithm: Maintains single, deep liquidity pools (e.g., a unified USDC pool) shared across all supported chains via LayerZero. This enables single-transaction composability for cross-chain swaps and stablecoin transfers. This matters for protocols building omnichain applications (like Pendle, Radiant) that require atomic composability and deep, unified liquidity for major assets.
Unified
Liquidity Model
04
Stargate: Atomic Guarantees & Composability
Guaranteed Finality with LayerZero: Uses immutable on-chain proof verification for message passing, providing atomic execution guarantees. This allows developers to build secure, cross-chain actions that either fully succeed or fail across all chains. This matters for complex, multi-step DeFi operations (e.g., cross-chain lending, yield strategies) where transaction atomicity is non-negotiable for security.
05
Across: For Cost-Optimized Volume
Choose Across when your primary constraints are fee minimization and transfer speed for large-value or frequent transfers of major assets (ETH, USDC, WBTC). Ideal for:
- Institutional treasury management
- MEV arbitrage bots between L2s
- Users bridging native ETH
06
Stargate: For Omnichain Applications
Choose Stargate when you need atomic composability and deep, unified liquidity for building native cross-chain applications. Ideal for:
- Protocols using the OFT standard (e.g., Sommelier, Radiant Capital)
- Complex DeFi lego requiring guaranteed finality
- Stablecoin-focused dApps needing single-pool efficiency
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Across vs Stargate: EVM Liquidity Bridges
Direct comparison of key technical metrics and economic features for EVM-native bridging.
| Metric | Across Protocol | Stargate Finance |
|---|---|---|
Core Mechanism | Optimistic Verification | Delta Algorithm (Unified Liquidity) |
Avg. Bridge Time (Ethereum) | ~2-4 min | ~1-3 min |
Avg. Fee (Ethereum → Arbitrum) | 0.1-0.3% | 0.06% + gas |
Native Gas Refund | ||
Supported EVM Chains | 8 | 15+ |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $200M+ | $400M+ |
Canonical Token Standard | Any (Arbitrary Msg) | LayerZero OFT |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
Across vs Stargate: EVM Liquidity Bridges
Direct comparison of key operational and economic metrics for cross-chain liquidity protocols.
| Metric | Across Protocol | Stargate Finance |
|---|---|---|
Primary Security Model | Optimistic Verification | LayerZero + Delta Algorithm |
Avg. Bridge Time (Ethereum → Arbitrum) | ~1-4 min | ~2-10 min |
Avg. Cost (Ethereum → Arbitrum, $50k USDC) | $5-15 | $10-25 |
Native Gas Abstraction | ||
Supported EVM Chains | 8 | 15+ |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $450M | $400M |
Liquidity Model | Optimistic Pooled Liquidity | Unified Liquidity Pools |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Across vs Stargate: EVM Liquidity Bridges
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs and Architects choosing a cross-chain liquidity solution.
01
Across: Capital Efficiency
Relayer-based model: Uses a competitive network of relayers to source liquidity on-demand, minimizing locked capital. This results in deeper available liquidity for large transfers (e.g., $10M+ trades) and lower costs for users, as relayers compete on fees. This matters for protocols moving large treasury amounts or high-volume dApps.
02
Across: Security & Speed
Optimistic verification with UMA: Relayers front funds and proofs are verified optimistically after 20 minutes, enabling sub-2 minute finality for most transfers. The security model relies on UMA's Data Verification Mechanism (DVM) for dispute resolution, reducing smart contract attack surface. This matters for users prioritizing speed without sacrificing security assurances.
03
Stargate: Native Omnichain Experience
Unified liquidity pools & LayerZero: Maintains canonical, composable assets via the Stargate Router and LayerZero's immutable Endpoints. Enables single-transaction cross-chain swaps (e.g., swap USDC on Arbitrum for USDT on Polygon). This matters for building seamless omnichain dApps, like SushiXSwap, that require unified liquidity and message passing.
04
Stargate: Composability & Ecosystem
Deep DeFi integration: As a foundational LayerZero primitive, it's integrated into major protocols like PancakeSwap, Trader Joe, and Radiant Capital. The STG token governs a multi-chain DAO and fee distribution. This matters for developers who need their bridge logic to be a composable layer within a broader omnichain stack.
05
Across: Consider If...
Your priority is cost-effective, large-value transfers with maximal capital efficiency. Ideal for:
- DAO treasury management
- Institutional cross-chain moves
- Protocols where minimizing bridge LP opportunity cost is critical
06
Stargate: Consider If...
You are building a native omnichain application that requires unified assets and deep composability. Ideal for:
- Cross-chain DEX aggregators
- Omnichain lending/borrowing protocols
- Projects already integrated with the LayerZero stack
pros-cons-b
KEY DIFFERENTIATORS
Stargate vs Across: EVM Liquidity Bridges
A data-driven comparison of two leading canonical bridges, focusing on architecture, cost, and risk trade-offs for enterprise integration.
02
Stargate's Trade-off: Systemic Risk & Cost
Shared Risk Model: Liquidity is pooled across chains; a critical exploit on one chain could drain the entire protocol's TVL. Higher Gas Costs: Uses LayerZero's Ultra Light Nodes for verification, leading to higher base gas fees versus optimistic models. This matters for security-first protocols and high-frequency, low-value transactions.
04
Across's Trade-off: Speed & Liquidity Fragmentation
Fixed Delay: The 20-minute optimistic window adds latency, making it unsuitable for real-time applications. Liquidity Silos: Primary liquidity resides on Ethereum; transfers between L2s (e.g., Arbitrum to Optimism) often require two hops, increasing complexity and cost. This matters for user-facing dApps requiring instant finality or complex multi-chain operations.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Across for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for capital efficiency and MEV protection. Strengths:
- Capital Efficiency: Utilizes a single-sided liquidity model with relayers, requiring significantly less locked capital than canonical bridges. This translates to deeper liquidity for large, cross-chain DeFi operations.
- MEV Protection: The UMA optimistic oracle and relayer model mitigates front-running and sandwich attacks on user transfers, a critical feature for arbitrageurs and large traders.
- Cost-Effective for Large Swaps: Lower overall cost structure for substantial transfers due to the economic model, despite variable fees.
Stargate for DeFi
Verdict: Ideal for composability and stablecoin-focused applications. Strengths:
- Native Composability: The LayerZero omnichain protocol and Stargate Finance SDK enable seamless integration for cross-chain lending, yield farming, and leveraged strategies without fragmentation.
- Unified Liquidity Pools: Single, deep liquidity pools for assets like USDC, USDT, and ETH provide consistent rates and availability across all supported chains.
- Guaranteed Finality: Uses LayerZero's Ultra Light Nodes for secure, deterministic message passing, ensuring delivery without third-party relay uncertainty.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between Across and Stargate hinges on your protocol's core priorities: capital efficiency and security versus ecosystem reach and composability.
Across excels at cost-effective, secure bridging for large transactions because of its unique architecture. It uses a single canonical token pool on the destination chain, a bonded relay network for instant guarantees, and a slow-fill fallback to source-chain DEXs for liquidity. This results in lower fees for users, as evidenced by consistently ranking as one of the lowest-cost bridges for major assets like ETH and USDC on L2Beat's fee comparison dashboards. Its security is anchored by the UMA optimistic oracle, making it a robust choice for institutional-scale transfers.
Stargate takes a different approach by prioritizing unified liquidity and native asset delivery across a vast multi-chain ecosystem. Its LayerZero-powered omnichain fungible token (OFT) standard creates a single liquidity pool shared across all supported chains (16+ including Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, and BNB Chain). This results in a trade-off: while it enables seamless native asset transfers and deep integration with top DeFi protocols like Aave, Curve, and Pendle, its canonical bridge model and shared pools can lead to higher gas costs and more complex security considerations than Across's optimistic model.
The key trade-off is liquidity architecture versus cost structure. If your priority is minimizing user fees for large, security-critical transfers (e.g., treasury management, institutional onboarding), choose Across. Its capital-efficient model and UMA-backed dispute resolution are decisive. If you prioritize native asset delivery, broad ecosystem composability, and supporting a wide range of chains for a retail-facing dApp, choose Stargate. Its deep integration with the LayerZero ecosystem and unified pools provide a superior developer experience for cross-chain applications.
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