Across vs Stargate: Fee Predictability

introduction

THE ANALYSIS

Introduction: The Core Challenge of Cross-Chain Fee Predictability

A data-driven comparison of how Across and Stargate approach the critical problem of unpredictable bridging costs.

Across excels at minimizing and stabilizing user-facing gas fees by leveraging a unique architecture. It uses a decentralized relay network of validators who compete to cover gas costs on the destination chain, with users only paying a fixed, predictable fee on the source chain. This design effectively shields users from volatile L1 gas spikes, as seen in its consistent sub-$5 fees for major Ethereum-to-Optimism transfers, even during network congestion.

Stargate takes a different approach by building on LayerZero's omnichain protocol and utilizing a liquidity pool model. This results in fees that are a direct function of pool depth, target chain congestion, and a dynamic liquidity provider fee. While this offers deep liquidity for large transfers, the fee is less predictable for end-users, as it can fluctuate with the real-time supply/demand of the pool's stablecoins and the gas conditions on the destination chain.

The key trade-off: If your priority is user experience and cost predictability for frequent, smaller transactions—especially from L1 to L2s—choose Across. Its relay model provides a consistent fee quote. If you prioritize deep, generalized liquidity for large-value stablecoin transfers across a wide array of chains and can tolerate some fee variance, choose Stargate.

tldr-summary

Across vs Stargate: Fee Predictability

TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance

A direct comparison of how each protocol structures and guarantees cross-chain transaction costs.

Across: Predictable, Fixed Fees

Relayer-based model with fixed fees: Users pay a known fee upfront, quoted by off-chain relayers. This fee covers gas and the relayer's service, providing cost certainty before you sign. This matters for enterprise treasury operations and high-value DeFi transactions where budget overruns are unacceptable.

Fixed

Fee Model

Across: No Slippage on Destination

Uses a liquidity pool (UMA's DVM) for final settlement: The bridging asset is swapped on the destination chain via a liquidity pool with a known, pre-determined exchange rate. This eliminates slippage risk on the receiving end. This matters for stablecoin transfers and arbitrage strategies where exact output amounts are critical.

Zero

Destination Slippage

Stargate: Variable, Market-Based Fees

Automated Market Maker (AMM) pool model: Fees are dynamic, composed of a base LayerZero message fee and a variable liquidity pool fee that fluctuates with pool balance and demand. This matters for highly liquid, popular routes (e.g., ETH-USDC on Ethereum <> Arbitrum) where competition can drive fees down, but can spike during congestion.

Variable

Fee Model

Stargate: Potential for Lower Base Cost

Native gas abstraction on some chains: For supported chains (e.g., Polygon zkEVM), Stargate can pay gas in the bridged token, simplifying the user experience. The AMM model can also offer lower fees during low-traffic periods when pool balance is high. This matters for retail users and frequent, small transactions where minimizing upfront native token requirements is key.

Contextual

Cost Advantage

ACROSS VS STARGATE

Head-to-Head: Fee Model & Predictability

Direct comparison of bridging fee structures and cost predictability for cross-chain transactions.

Metric	Across Protocol	Stargate Finance
Fee Model	Gas Reimbursement + Relayer Fee	Protocol Fee + Gas on Destination Chain
Typical Fee Range (per $1k transfer)	$1 - $5	$5 - $15
Fee Predictability	High (Gas refunded)	Medium (Gas paid upfront)
Gas Cost Responsibility	User pays on source, refunded on dest.	User pays for dest. gas upfront
Native Gas Token Required
Optimistic Oracle for Proofs
Primary Use Case	Cost-sensitive, large transfers	Speed-sensitive, small transfers

pros-cons-a

CROSS-CHAIN FEE ANALYSIS

A data-driven comparison of fee models for CTOs and architects. Predictability impacts cost forecasting and user experience.

Across: Dynamic & Optimized Fees

Real-time relay auction: Fees are determined by a competitive bidding process among relayers, optimizing for the fastest, cheapest transfer. This often results in lower effective costs for users, especially for large or urgent transfers. This matters for protocols prioritizing cost efficiency over fixed quotes.

Across: No Native Gas Abstraction

User pays destination gas: The user must hold the destination chain's native token (e.g., ETH on Arbitrum) to claim funds, adding a hidden cost variable. This matters for user experience design, as it complicates the "true all-in cost" calculation for end-users.

Stargate: Stable, Quote-Based Fees

Fixed-fee model: Users receive a single, all-inclusive quote upfront that covers source gas, protocol fee, and destination gas. This provides superior predictability for budgeting and user interface display. This matters for enterprise integrations and applications requiring precise cost certainty.

Stargate: Potential for Higher Base Cost

Pricing for worst-case scenarios: The fixed fee includes a buffer for destination gas, which can lead to less aggressive pricing compared to dynamic models during low-network congestion. This matters for high-frequency, low-value transactions where fee optimization is critical.

pros-cons-b

PROS AND CONS

Stargate Finance vs Across Protocol: Fee Predictability

A data-driven breakdown of how each bridge handles transaction costs. Fee predictability is critical for DeFi strategies, arbitrage, and user experience.

Stargate's Unified Fee Model

Fixed-fee pricing: Stargate charges a flat 6 bps (0.06%) fee on stablecoin transfers, plus a fixed destination chain gas fee. This creates a simple, upfront cost calculation for users and integrators like LayerZero and SushiSwap. Ideal for high-frequency stablecoin arbitrage where cost certainty is paramount.

0.06%

Base Fee

Across's Dynamic Auction Model

Real-time relay competition: Fees are determined by a permissionless network of relayers bidding to fill transfers. This can lead to lower realized costs during low congestion, often undercutting fixed-fee bridges. Essential for large, non-time-sensitive transfers where users can wait for optimal rates.

Variable

Fee Model

Stargate's Predictability Trade-off

Inflexible during volatility: The fixed fee does not adjust for network gas price spikes on the destination chain. Users may overpay during low-gas periods and integrators like Pendle must build in buffers. A drawback for gas-sensitive chains like Ethereum where costs can swing 500%+.

Across's Predictability Trade-off

Uncertain final cost: Users cannot know the exact fee until a relayer fills the request, complicating UX and contract logic. This variability is problematic for automated strategies on dApps like UMA that require precise pre-execution cost accounting.

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Bridge

Across for DeFi

Verdict: Superior for large, time-sensitive capital movements where cost predictability is critical. Strengths: Fee predictability is its core advantage. The relayer model with on-chain verification means users pay a known, static fee, crucial for arbitrage, treasury management, and large liquidity provisioning on protocols like Aave, Uniswap, or Compound. The optimistic verification model (UMA's Optimistic Oracle) provides strong security guarantees for high-value transfers. Trade-offs: Slightly slower for very small transfers due to the 20-minute optimistic window, but this is negligible for the target use case.

Stargate for DeFi

Verdict: Ideal for frequent, smaller cross-chain interactions within its supported ecosystems, especially when composability is key. Strengths: Native composability via the LayerZero protocol enables complex, single-transaction actions (e.g., swap on Chain A, bridge, and deposit into a yield farm on Chain B). This is powerful for yield aggregators and leveraged farming strategies. Supports a wider range of chains natively. Trade-offs: Fees are dynamic and can be less predictable as they include gas costs on destination chains and protocol fees, which can spike during congestion.

verdict

THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation

A direct comparison of fee predictability strategies, helping you choose the right cross-chain bridge for your protocol's economic model.

Across excels at providing near-zero, predictable fees for users by leveraging a unique model of intents and a unified liquidity pool on Ethereum. This is achieved through a competitive network of relayers who bid to fulfill transfers, with final settlement costs subsidized by the protocol's native $ACX token rewards. For example, a user sending USDC from Arbitrum to Optimism often pays only the destination chain gas fee, with the bridging fee effectively covered by the relayer system, leading to highly stable and low-cost transfers for end-users.

Stargate takes a different approach by offering guaranteed finality and unified liquidity through its LayerZero omnichain protocol. This results in a trade-off: fees are more transparent and bundled into a single quote but are inherently more variable as they are composed of the source chain gas fee, destination chain gas fee, and a dynamic liquidity provider fee based on pool utilization. While this model provides excellent composability for DeFi protocols like Pendle and Radiant, the total cost can fluctuate with network congestion on both the source and destination chains.

The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing and stabilizing end-user costs for simple asset transfers, choose Across. Its relayer-subsidized model is superior for applications like payroll or recurring payments where fee predictability is critical. If you prioritize atomic composability and guaranteed delivery for complex, multi-chain DeFi operations, choose Stargate. Its unified liquidity and message-passing guarantee are essential for protocols building on LayerZero, even with less predictable fee swings.

Across vs Stargate: Fee Predictability

Introduction: The Core Challenge of Cross-Chain Fee Predictability

TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance

Across: Predictable, Fixed Fees

Across: No Slippage on Destination

Stargate: Variable, Market-Based Fees

Stargate: Potential for Lower Base Cost

Head-to-Head: Fee Model & Predictability