Across Protocol excels at minimizing idle capital through its unique unified auction model. By routing user requests to a competitive network of relayers who source liquidity from a single, shared pool on Ethereum, it dramatically reduces the capital providers must lock up. This model, combined with its optimistic verification system, has enabled Across to secure over $2.5B in total volume while maintaining deep liquidity with relatively low TVL, leading to some of the lowest effective fees for users on high-volume routes.
LABS
Comparisons
Across Protocol vs Stargate: Capital-Efficient Bridging
A technical comparison of two leading capital-efficient bridges: Across Protocol's optimistic verification model versus Stargate's unified liquidity pools. We analyze trade-offs in speed, cost, security, and developer integration for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Capital-Efficiency Paradigm
A data-driven comparison of how Across Protocol and Stargate Finance approach the critical challenge of capital efficiency in cross-chain bridging.
Stargate Finance takes a different approach with its unified liquidity pools and LayerZero's omnichain messaging. It creates dedicated liquidity pools on each supported chain (like Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche) which are algorithmically rebalanced. This provides deterministic latency and a seamless user experience for stablecoin transfers. However, this requires significantly more locked capital (TVL often exceeding $400M) spread across all chains to maintain deep liquidity, which is a trade-off for its guaranteed composability with dApps in the Stargate/LayerZero ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing protocol-owned capital costs and achieving the lowest possible transfer fees for users, especially from rollups to Ethereum, choose Across. If you prioritize deterministic finality, native asset swaps, and deep integration with a broad ecosystem of omnichain dApps (like Radiant, Pendle, or Rage Trade), choose Stargate.
tldr-summary
Across Protocol vs Stargate
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for capital-efficient bridging.
01
Across: Capital Efficiency
Uses a single liquidity pool on Ethereum with a relay auction model. This reduces required capital by ~90% compared to lock-and-mint bridges. This matters for protocols that need to move large, sporadic volumes without locking up massive TVL.
~90%
Less Capital Required
02
Across: Security & Finality
Relies on the security of the source chain via optimistic verification. The canonical chain's validators are the trust root, not a new validator set. This matters for teams prioritizing maximal security and avoiding new trust assumptions, especially for high-value transfers.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Across Protocol vs Stargate: Capital-Efficient Bridging
Direct comparison of key bridging metrics and architectural features for CTOs and architects.
| Metric / Feature | Across Protocol | Stargate Finance |
|---|---|---|
Primary Security Model | Optimistic Validation (UMA) | LayerZero (Omnichain) |
Capital Efficiency (TVL per $1B Bridged) | $30M | $150M |
Avg. Bridge Time (Ethereum → Arbitrum) | ~3 min | ~1 min |
Native Gas Abstraction | ||
Supported Chains | 10+ (EVM Focus) | 30+ (Multi-VM) |
Fee Model | Relayer Tips + LP Fees | Standard Swap Fee + LP Fee |
Unified Liquidity Pool Design |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Across Protocol vs Stargate: Capital-Efficient Bridging
A data-driven breakdown of the leading liquidity network and canonical bridge, highlighting their core architectural trade-offs for cross-chain value transfer.
01
Across Protocol: Capital Efficiency
Optimistic verification model: Uses a single liquidity pool on Ethereum, with relayers fronting capital and settling via UMA's optimistic oracle. This enables ~$200M TVL to secure billions in monthly volume (e.g., $1.2B+ in March 2024). This matters for protocols moving large sums with minimal locked capital overhead.
02
Across Protocol: Speed & Cost
Fast execution, variable finality: Transfers are typically completed in 1-4 minutes, as they only await the origin chain's confirmation. Finality relies on the 2-hour fraud-proof window. This matters for users prioritizing speed over instant guaranteed finality, especially for high-value transfers from L2s like Arbitrum and Optimism.
03
Stargate: Native Asset & Composability
Unified liquidity pools & native issuance: Uses the LayerZero protocol for cross-chain messaging with a canonical representation of assets (e.g., native USDC). This enables seamless integration with native DeFi apps like Aave and Curve without wrapping. This matters for developers building omnichain dApps that require consistent asset behavior.
04
Stargate: Instant Guaranteed Finality
Deterministic security via LayerZero: Messages are validated by decentralized oracle and relayer networks, providing instant, guaranteed finality upon confirmation. This matters for arbitrageurs, traders, and applications where settlement certainty is non-negotiable, despite potentially higher gas costs for the security model.
05
Across Protocol: Complexity & Risk
Relayer dependency & fraud-proof window: Users are exposed to relayer solvency risk and must trust the 2-hour dispute window for security. While proven, this adds a layer of complexity versus canonical bridges. This matters for protocols with strict, real-time settlement requirements or low-risk tolerance for optimistic assumptions.
06
Stargate: Capital Lockup & Slippage
Fragmented liquidity pools: Liquidity must be deployed across each supported chain (e.g., Ethereum, Avalanche, BSC), leading to higher total value locked (TVL ~$400M) to facilitate similar volume. Can experience slippage on imbalanced routes. This matters for liquidity providers seeking optimal yield and protocols evaluating total capital footprint.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS ANALYSIS
Across Protocol vs Stargate: Capital-Efficient Bridging
A data-driven comparison of two leading cross-chain bridges, focusing on their core mechanisms and trade-offs for capital efficiency and user experience.
01
Across: Superior Capital Efficiency
Uses a single liquidity pool on Ethereum with a decentralized relay network. This means liquidity isn't fragmented across chains, enabling deeper pools and lower slippage for large transfers. This matters for institutions and whales moving $1M+ in a single transaction.
$50M+
Single-Tx Capacity
02
Across: Optimistic Model for Speed
Relayers front funds instantly on the destination chain, with settlement finalized later on Ethereum via UMA's optimistic oracle. This provides 1-2 minute finality for users. This matters for traders and DeFi users who prioritize speed and a seamless experience.
1-2 min
Typical Finality
03
Across: Trade-Off - Centralized Relayer Risk
Speed depends on a permissioned set of professional relayers. While bonded and slashed for misbehavior, this introduces a trust assumption not present in pure atomic swaps. This matters for purist protocols that prioritize maximal decentralization over UX.
04
Stargate: Native Omnichain Assets
Mints native STG-wrapped assets (e.g., USDC.e, ETH.axl) via LayerZero, enabling direct integration with destination chain DApps. This matters for yield farmers and liquidity providers who need assets in the native format for protocols like Aave or Curve.
15+
Native Chains
05
Stargate: Unified Liquidity Pools
Shares liquidity across all chains for a given asset via its "Unified Liquidity Model." This improves utilization but can lead to imbalances and higher fees during asymmetric flows. This matters for arbitrageurs and frequent cross-chain swappers who benefit from pooled depth.
06
Stargate: Trade-Off - Fragmentation & Slippage
Liquidity is split into separate pools per chain pair within the unified model. For large, direct transfers between less common pairs (e.g., Polygon to Avalanche), this can result in higher slippage and cost compared to a single-pool model. This matters for enterprise treasury operations with predictable, large-volume routes.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Across Protocol for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for high-value, time-sensitive arbitrage and large capital movements. Strengths:
- Capital Efficiency: Utilizes a single-sided liquidity model with relayers, unlocking deeper liquidity for major assets like ETH, USDC, and WBTC without requiring paired liquidity on the destination chain.
- Speed for Value: UMA's Optimistic Oracle provides near-instant guarantees for validated transfers, critical for arbitrage and liquidations where minutes matter.
- Cost Structure: Lower fees for large transfers due to the relayer model; gas is subsidized and bundled. Consider: Best for established assets on major L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) and Ethereum mainnet.
Stargate for DeFi
Verdict: The default for routine, composable cross-chain operations and stablecoin routing. Strengths:
- Native Composability: The LayerZero-powered Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard allows tokens to move as native assets, enabling direct integration into destination chain DeFi (e.g., supplying a bridged USDC directly to Aave).
- Unified Liquidity Pools: Deep, canonical stablecoin pools (USDC, USDT) provide consistent rates and are battle-tested with billions in TVL.
- Developer Experience: Simple
swap()andsend()functions that are easily composable within a transaction. Consider: The go-to for stablecoin bridges, routine treasury management, and protocols building omnichain applications.
ACROSS PROTOCOL VS STARGATE
Technical Deep Dive: Security and Validation
This section analyzes the core security models and capital efficiency of two leading bridging solutions, Across and Stargate, to help you assess risk and operational costs for your cross-chain strategy.
Across Protocol is generally more capital efficient for large, fast transfers. Its architecture separates liquidity from validation, using a single-sided liquidity pool (like WETH) on the destination chain and a network of off-chain relayers. This allows deeper liquidity per dollar of capital. Stargate's model requires mirrored liquidity pools on both source and destination chains, locking capital in a 1:1 ratio, which can be less efficient for volatile or imbalanced asset flows.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between Across Protocol and Stargate to guide your bridging infrastructure decision.
Across Protocol excels at capital efficiency and cost predictability because of its unique architecture combining a unified liquidity pool on Ethereum with off-chain relayers. This model minimizes locked capital and offers users a single, transparent fee. For example, during periods of high demand, its optimistic verification and use of UMA's oracle often result in lower and more stable fees compared to canonical bridges, as seen in its consistent sub-1-minute finality for major assets.
Stargate takes a different approach by building a native Omnichain Fungible Token (OFT) standard and a LayerZero-powered canonical bridge. This results in a trade-off of higher capital lockup across chains for superior composability and native asset delivery. Its deep, chain-specific liquidity pools (with over $400M TVL) enable seamless cross-chain swaps for stablecoins like USDC and USDT, but require more capital to be deployed across each supported network.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing operational costs, predictable fees, and Ethereum-centric security for value transfers, choose Across Protocol. It is the optimal engine for treasury management and high-volume, cost-sensitive applications. If you prioritize native asset delivery, deep stablecoin liquidity, and direct integration with a vast dApp ecosystem (like PancakeSwap, Trader Joe, or Radiant Capital), choose Stargate. Its OFT standard is the definitive choice for projects building omnichain applications.
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