zkSync's Native Bridge excels at secure, trust-minimized transfers of its native ETH and ERC-20 tokens because it is a canonical bridge built directly into the zkSync Era rollup's security model. For example, it leverages Ethereum's L1 for finality and inherits security from the underlying validity proofs, making it the default for moving core assets like ETH, USDC, and WETH with high assurance. This architecture prioritizes security and native ecosystem alignment over multi-chain flexibility.
LABS
Comparisons
zkSync Bridge vs Stargate: Asset Coverage
A technical comparison of the native zkSync Bridge and the universal Stargate bridge, focusing on asset coverage, liquidity depth, and architectural trade-offs for protocol architects and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Native vs Universal Bridge Architectures
A foundational comparison of zkSync's native bridge and Stargate's universal liquidity network, focusing on their core architectural trade-offs for asset coverage.
Stargate takes a different approach by operating as a universal liquidity layer, connecting over 15 chains including zkSync Era, Arbitrum, and Polygon. This is achieved through its proprietary Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard and a unified liquidity pool model. This results in a trade-off: it enables seamless cross-chain swaps for a curated list of assets (e.g., USDC, USDT, ETH) across many ecosystems in a single transaction, but introduces a different trust model reliant on its decentralized validator set and pooled liquidity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security and cost-effective transfers of native zkSync assets from Ethereum L1, the zkSync native bridge is the definitive choice. If you prioritize single-transaction swaps between zkSync and a wide array of other L2s and alt-L1s (like Avalanche or BSC), Stargate's universal coverage is superior. The decision hinges on whether your use case is ecosystem-centric or interoperability-first.
tldr-summary
zkSync Bridge vs Stargate: Asset Coverage
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
A direct comparison of native vs aggregated bridging strategies for asset transfer.
01
zkSync Bridge: Native Ecosystem Depth
Direct Layer-2 Integration: Transfers assets directly onto zkSync Era's canonical bridge, ensuring maximum security and compatibility with native DeFi like SyncSwap and Maverick Protocol. This matters for users prioritizing sovereign security and deep interaction within a single L2 ecosystem.
02
zkSync Bridge: Cost & Speed for ETH/USDC
Optimized for Core Assets: For bridging ETH and native USDC to/from Ethereum Mainnet, zkSync's bridge offers lower fees and faster finality (often < 10 min) by leveraging ZK-proofs. This matters for high-volume traders and protocols moving primary liquidity who value predictable, minimal costs.
03
Stargate: Omnichain Liquidity Network
Unified Asset Pool Model: Uses a liquidity pool (LP) system across 15+ chains (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, BSC) for instant guaranteed finality. Supports native USDC, USDT, ETH with a single liquidity layer. This matters for protocols like Radiant Capital that require cross-chain composability and same-asset transfers across many networks.
04
Stargate: Expanded Token Selection
Broad ERC-20 & Stablecoin Support: Bridges assets like FRAX, DAI, LUSD, and SUSHI that are not natively available on zkSync's bridge. Leverages LayerZero for omnichain messaging. This matters for DAO treasuries and yield farmers who need to move diverse, established tokens beyond the core few.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Asset Coverage & Liquidity
Direct comparison of native asset coverage and liquidity depth for bridging decisions.
| Metric | zkSync Bridge | Stargate |
|---|---|---|
Native Asset Support | ||
Supported Chains | Ethereum, zkSync Era | 15+ (EVM & non-EVM) |
Liquidity Depth (TVL) | $1.2B+ | $400M+ |
Supported Assets | ETH, USDC, USDT, DAI | USDC, USDT, ETH, FRAX, DAI, STG |
Cross-Chain Messaging | ||
Avg. Bridge Time | ~15 min | < 3 min |
Fee Structure | L2 gas + protocol fee | Gas + liquidity fee (0.06%-0.4%) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
zkSync Bridge vs Stargate: Asset Coverage
A data-driven comparison of native and third-party bridging solutions for asset transfer. Choose based on your need for ecosystem depth versus multi-chain flexibility.
01
zkSync Bridge (Native) - Pros
Deep native asset support: Directly supports all core zkSync Era tokens (ETH, USDC, USDT, DAI, WBTC) with canonical security. This matters for protocols requiring maximum trust minimization and direct L1<>L2 state verification.
02
zkSync Bridge (Native) - Cons
Limited cross-chain scope: Primarily an Ethereum L1 <> zkSync Era bridge. For moving assets from other L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism) or alternative L1s (Avalanche, Polygon), you need a secondary bridge, increasing steps and cost.
03
Stargate (LayerZero) - Pros
Unified multi-chain liquidity: Single transaction transfers across 15+ chains (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Polygon, BSC). This matters for portfolios or dApps operating across multiple ecosystems needing a single integration point.
04
Stargate (LayerZero) - Cons
Third-party token reliance: Uses bridged, wrapped assets (stgUSDC) rather than canonical versions on some chains, introducing a dependency on LayerZero's oracle/relayer security model. Native asset purity is sacrificed for reach.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
zkSync Bridge vs Stargate: Asset Coverage
A data-driven comparison of native asset support and cross-chain liquidity for CTOs evaluating infrastructure dependencies.
01
zkSync Bridge: Native Asset Focus
Direct Layer 2 native bridging: Transfers ETH and ERC-20s directly to zkSync Era's L2 state. This matters for protocols requiring canonical security and direct integration with native DeFi like SyncSwap and Maverick Protocol.
02
zkSync Bridge: Protocol Simplicity
Single-chain destination model: Reduces complexity for engineering teams managing a single liquidity endpoint. This matters for gas-efficient, predictable transfers where the sole target is zkSync's ecosystem.
03
Stargate: Omnichain Liquidity
Unified liquidity pools across 15+ chains: A single USDC pool serves Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, etc. This matters for treasury management and multi-chain dApps needing to move large volumes without fragmenting liquidity.
04
Stargate: Composability & Speed
Native integration with LayerZero: Enables cross-chain composability for applications like Radiant Capital (lend on Arbitrum, borrow on BSC). This matters for architects building omnichain smart contracts that require atomic transactions.
05
zkSync Bridge: Limited Chain Support
Only bridges from Ethereum L1: A significant constraint for projects operating on Polygon, Avalanche, or other L2s. This forces a two-step bridge via Ethereum, increasing cost and latency for multi-chain users.
06
Stargate: Third-Party Asset Risk
Relies on bridged (wrapped) assets: USDC.e on Avalanche, not native USDC. This matters for risk-averse treasuries concerned with dependency on Stargate's LP security and potential de-pegging events.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
zkSync Bridge for DeFi
Verdict: The native choice for deep liquidity within the zkSync ecosystem. Strengths: Direct access to the canonical bridge's zkSync Era and zkSync Lite native assets (ETH, wBTC, USDC, USDT). This is critical for protocols requiring the highest security and official asset representation. It's the foundation for major DeFi protocols like SyncSwap, Mute.io, and Velocore, ensuring seamless composability. Use this for core protocol treasury management or when integrating with native zkSync DeFi tooling.
Stargate for DeFi
Verdict: The essential cross-chain liquidity router for multi-chain strategies. Strengths: Unmatched asset coverage across 15+ chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, BSC, Avalanche, etc.) via its LayerZero omnichain protocol. Enables single-transaction swaps from any supported chain to zkSync. Vital for aggregators, yield strategies spanning multiple L2s, and protocols that need to source liquidity from diverse ecosystems. Lower cost for moving between non-Ethereum chains.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
Choosing between zkSync Bridge and Stargate hinges on your protocol's core need: native ecosystem integration or expansive multi-chain liquidity.
zkSync Bridge excels at providing secure, low-cost transfers for its core native assets (ETH, USDC, USDT) within the zkSync Era ecosystem. It leverages ZK-rollup technology for finality in minutes with fees often under $0.10, making it the optimal path for users and protocols deeply embedded in the zkSync stack. Its integration with native account abstraction and the upcoming ZK Stack for hyperchains creates a seamless, future-proof experience for ecosystem-native applications.
Stargate takes a fundamentally different approach by operating as a liquidity layer protocol across 15+ chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, and Polygon. Its "unified liquidity" model pools assets, enabling single-transaction cross-chain swaps (e.g., USDC from Arbitrum to Optimism). This results in a trade-off: while offering unparalleled asset coverage (including niche assets like FRAX and LUSD) and route flexibility, it introduces dependency on the Stargate DAO, LayerZero's oracle/relayer network, and slightly higher aggregate fees for complex multi-hop routes.
The key trade-off is between ecosystem depth and chain breadth. If your priority is minimizing cost and latency for users primarily on zkSync Era and you value tight integration with its native tooling (ZK Stack, account abstraction), the zkSync Bridge is the definitive choice. Choose Stargate when your protocol requires broad, multi-chain liquidity access for a diverse asset portfolio and your users demand seamless transfers between disparate ecosystems like Avalanche and Base. For maximum coverage, some protocols strategically deploy both, using zkSync Bridge for core deposits/withdrawals and Stargate for cross-chain liquidity rebalancing.
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