Hop Protocol excels at native, multi-hop liquidity because it deploys its own canonical bridge wrappers (hTokens) and a network of automated market makers (AMMs) on each chain. This creates a unified liquidity pool, enabling direct, non-custodial swaps between any supported rollup like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon zkEVM. For example, its architecture allows for consistent, predictable fees and supports over $40M in TVL, making it a robust choice for high-frequency, programmatic bridging.
LABS
Comparisons
Hop vs Across: The Technical Guide to L2 to L2 Bridges
A data-driven comparison of Hop Protocol and Across Protocol for CTOs and architects. We analyze bridging architecture, latency, cost, security models, and developer tooling to determine the optimal bridge for specific use cases.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The L2 Bridging Imperative
A data-driven comparison of Hop Protocol and Across Protocol, the two leading canonical bridge alternatives for secure, fast L2-to-L2 asset transfers.
Across Protocol takes a different approach by leveraging a unified liquidity pool on Ethereum mainnet and a network of relayers. This single-sided deposit model, secured by the UMA Optimistic Oracle, results in a key trade-off: it often provides the fastest and cheapest transfers for users moving funds to Ethereum L1 or between L2s via the hub, but its efficiency can diminish for direct L2-to-L2 routes not involving the mainnet pool as the destination.
The key trade-off: If your priority is direct, gas-optimized L2-to-L2 transfers with predictable economics for users, choose Hop. If you prioritize the absolute lowest cost and fastest finality for transfers destined for Ethereum mainnet, or your users primarily bridge to/from L1, choose Across. Your chain topology and primary user flow dictate the optimal protocol.
tldr-summary
Hop vs Across: L2 to L2
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Hop's Strength: Native Bridge Integration
Direct canonical bridge integration: Hop uses a unified liquidity pool model that interacts directly with native L2 bridges (e.g., Optimism Gateway, Arbitrum Bridge). This matters for protocols building cross-chain composability as it provides a consistent, non-custodial path for assets like ETH, USDC, and DAI.
8+
Supported Chains
03
Across's Strength: Capital Efficiency & Speed
Optimistic verification model: Relayers front liquidity and proofs are verified after-the-fact, enabling near-instant settlement (often <5 min). This matters for users and arbitrageurs where speed is critical. The model requires less locked capital than bonded models, leading to lower fees.
< 5 min
Typical Settlement
05
Hop's Trade-off: Higher Baseline Cost
Liquidity provider fees + bridge gas: Users pay a fee to LPs for the hop and must cover gas on the destination chain's native bridge. This matters for high-frequency, low-value transfers where fixed costs can become prohibitive compared to optimistic models.
06
Across's Trade-off: Centralized Relayer Risk
Permissioned relayers: While the verification is decentralized via UMA, liquidity is initially provided by a whitelisted set of relayers. This matters for protocols with strict decentralization requirements, as it introduces a potential liveness dependency on these entities.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Hop Protocol vs Across Protocol: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of bridging solutions for L2-to-L2 asset transfers.
| Metric / Feature | Hop Protocol | Across Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Bridging Model | Liquidity Pool-Based | Optimistic Verification |
Avg. Bridge Time (ETH Mainnet) | ~10-20 min | ~1-3 min |
Supported Chains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base, Gnosis | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base, zkSync |
Native Gas Fee Payment | ||
Governance Token | HOP | ACX |
Major Integrations | Uniswap, Aave, 1inch | Circle CCTP, Socket, LI.FI |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
Hop vs Across: L2 to L2 Bridge Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics for bridging assets between Ethereum L2s.
| Metric | Hop Protocol | Across Protocol |
|---|---|---|
Bridging Time (Optimism → Arbitrum) | ~20-30 min | < 5 min |
Avg. User Cost (incl. gas & fees) | $5-15 | $2-8 |
Security Model | Bonded Relayers | Optimistic Oracle (UMA) |
Native Token Required | ||
Supported L2s | 6+ (Arb, OP, etc.) | 5+ (Arb, OP, etc.) |
TVL (USD) | $30M+ | $80M+ |
Max Single-Tx Bridge Limit | $500K | No hard limit |
pros-cons-a
Hop vs Across: L2 to L2
Hop Protocol: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading canonical bridge alternatives. Choose based on your protocol's needs for speed, cost, and security.
01
Hop's Strength: Native Speed & Composability
Optimistic rollup-native design: Uses bonded relayers on a destination chain for instant guarantees, with finality in ~30 minutes. This enables native integrations with DeFi apps like Aave and Uniswap V3 for immediate liquidity provisioning post-bridge.
02
Hop's Drawback: Capital Inefficiency & Centralization
Bonder liquidity requirement: Relies on professional bonders to front capital, creating centralization risk and liquidity fragmentation across 7+ chains. High-volume routes can suffer from temporary liquidity droughts, increasing wait times.
03
Across's Strength: Capital Efficiency & Unified Liquidity
Optimistic verification model: Uses a single liquidity pool on Ethereum with off-chain relayers, dramatically improving capital efficiency. This design supports $2B+ in historical volume with lower systemic liquidity requirements than bonder models.
04
Across's Drawback: Slower for Some Destinations
Ethereum L1 finality dependency: While fast for Optimistic Rollups (e.g., ~5 min to Arbitrum), transfers to ZK Rollups or other L1s must wait for Ethereum's 12-minute challenge window, making it slower than Hop for certain route pairs.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Hop Protocol vs. Across Protocol: L2 to L2
A data-driven comparison of two leading cross-chain bridges for moving assets between Ethereum Layer 2s. Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
Hop Protocol: Speed & Composability
Optimistic Rollup-native design: Uses canonical bridges and bonded relayers for fast, trust-minimized transfers. This matters for high-frequency traders and DeFi protocols requiring predictable, sub-30 minute finality. Its modular architecture enables direct integration with dApps like Aave and Uniswap.
< 30 min
Typical Finality
10+
Supported L2s
02
Hop Protocol: Liquidity Fragmentation
Hub-and-spoke model requires pooled liquidity: Each route (e.g., Arbitrum→Optimism) needs its own canonical bridge token (hToken) and liquidity pool. This matters for large transfers or newer chains, where liquidity can be thin, leading to higher slippage and the need for active liquidity mining incentives.
03
Across Protocol: Capital Efficiency & Cost
Single-sided liquidity pools with relayers: Liquidity providers deposit only into a single pool on mainnet, which is used to fulfill transfers from any supported chain via a competitive relay auction. This matters for capital-conscious LPs and users, resulting in lower fees (often <0.1%) for large transfers due to efficient capital reuse.
< 0.1%
Typical Fee
$200M+
Pooled TVL
04
Across Protocol: Latency & Complexity
Optimistic verification adds latency: Relayers front funds and proofs are verified on-chain after a 1-3 hour challenge period. This matters for time-sensitive arbitrage or urgent withdrawals. The architecture, while capital-efficient, is more complex, relying on a sophisticated relay network and UMA's optimistic oracle for security.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which Bridge
Hop Protocol for Speed
Verdict: Optimal for user-facing applications requiring sub-minute transfers. Strengths: Hop's optimistic rollup model provides near-instantaneous confirmation on the destination chain, typically under 3 minutes. This is achieved by leveraging a network of bonded relayers and liquidity pools on each chain (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon). The speed is deterministic and does not depend on the source chain's finality. Trade-off: This speed relies on the economic security of bonded relayers and the liquidity depth in the AMM pools. For massive, single-transaction volumes, you may encounter slippage.
Across Protocol for Speed
Verdict: Excellent for large, time-sensitive transfers where cost is secondary. Strengths: Across uses a spoke-hub model with UMA's Optimistic Oracle. Once a fill is committed by a relayer, funds are available on the destination in ~1-8 minutes, often faster than Hop for Arbitrum/Optimism routes. The speed is highly competitive for its primary routes. Trade-off: The final speed can be variable, depending on relayer competition and the challenge period of the oracle. It's generally faster than canonical bridges but can be slightly less predictable than Hop's model for some routes.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Hop and Across hinges on prioritizing capital efficiency for frequent, high-volume transfers versus maximizing security and decentralization for high-value transactions.
Hop Protocol excels at providing a seamless, fast user experience for frequent L2-to-L2 transfers because it leverages a network of canonical bridges and automated market makers (AMMs) on each destination chain. This architecture, using Bonders for liquidity, enables sub-10 minute transfers for major assets like ETH, USDC, and DAI. For example, a user bridging from Arbitrum to Optimism can expect a transaction to be completed in minutes, not hours, with fees primarily composed of gas costs on the source and destination chains.
Across Protocol takes a different approach by utilizing a single, unified liquidity pool on Ethereum mainnet and a network of Relayers and UMA's optimistic oracle. This results in a trade-off: while the initial quote and final settlement can be slower (often 10-20 minutes), the model is exceptionally capital efficient, leading to consistently lower fees for users. Data from Dune Analytics frequently shows Across offering the lowest cost for large, non-time-sensitive transfers, as it doesn't require locked liquidity on every destination chain.
The key trade-off is speed and convenience versus cost and security architecture. If your protocol's priority is user experience for frequent, smaller transfers across a wide array of L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, etc.), choose Hop. Its integrated AMMs and faster settlement are ideal for dApps like decentralized exchanges or gaming platforms. If you prioritize the absolute lowest cost and maximum security assurances for high-value, less time-sensitive transfers, choose Across. Its single-sided liquidity pool and optimistic oracle-based verification make it the preferred choice for treasury management or large institutional moves.
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