Across vs Stargate: Which Cross-Chain Bridge Wins in 2026
// Quick answer
Pick Across. Sub-minute bridge times and lower fees on the most common routes.
Here's the short answer first, the reasoning second.
Across wins on speed, capital efficiency through intent-based architecture and lower fees for typical bridging amounts. Stargate wins on chain coverage breadth, native USDC/USDT pool depth and the LayerZero infrastructure backing it. If you bridge ETH or USDC quickly between major L2s pick Across. If you need maximum chain coverage and stablecoin pool depth pick Stargate. Built and tested with Crawlux by Crawlux.
Free • No signup • Score in 90 seconds
★★★★★ Trusted by 200+ Web3 brands. Built by the team behind TG3 Agency's crypto SEO playbook.
// TL;DR
Key takeaways
- →Pick Across. Sub-minute bridge times and lower fees on the most common routes.
- →Pick Stargate. Broader chain coverage including some chains Across does not support.
- →Across: Intent-based architecture delivers materially faster bridges.
- →Stargate: Materially broader chain coverage.
Across vs Stargate at a glance
Skip to the section you need. Or read the full breakdown below.
If you bridge ETH or USDC between major L2s
Pick Across. Sub-minute bridge times and lower fees on the most common routes.
If you bridge to less common chains
Pick Stargate. Broader chain coverage including some chains Across does not support.
If you bridge stablecoins at large size
Pick Stargate. Deep native USDC and USDT pools handle larger amounts without slippage.
If you bridge as part of dApp integration
Pick Across. The intent-based architecture is more common in DeFi aggregators (Bungee, Socket, Li.Fi).
Why Across is better than Stargate
Across wins on three specific axes that matter for most Cross-chain bridge users.
Intent-based architecture delivers materially faster bridges. Across uses an intent-based model: relayers fulfill user bridge requests on the destination chain immediately, then settle later via the canonical bridge. Typical bridge time is 1-3 minutes vs Stargate's 5-15 minutes for similar routes. For users moving capital between L2s rapidly Across is meaningfully better UX.
Lower fees for typical bridge amounts. Across fees are typically 0.05-0.15% vs Stargate's 0.10-0.30% for comparable routes. The fee difference is more pronounced on smaller amounts where Stargate's fee floor matters more. For frequent bridgers and DeFi aggregators routing user transactions Across produces materially better cost outcomes.
Better integration with DeFi aggregators and intent solvers. Across has become the default bridge for many DeFi aggregators (Bungee, Socket, Li.Fi, Squid) because of its API design and competitive economics for relayers. CowSwap, 1inch and other major DEX aggregators include Across as primary cross-chain option. Stargate has integrations but is less central to the intent-based DeFi infrastructure.
Why Stargate is better than Across
Stargate wins on a different set of axes. Three points where it materially beats Across.
Materially broader chain coverage. Stargate is live on 30+ chains including major L1s (Ethereum, Avalanche, BNB Chain, Polygon), major L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) plus less-common chains (Aptos, Klaytn, Mantle and others). Across is focused on EVM L2s with coverage in the 15-20 chain range. For users bridging to non-EVM chains or less common destinations Stargate is the only option.
Deep native USDC and USDT pool liquidity. Stargate maintains shared stablecoin liquidity pools (Δ-Bridge architecture) that hold $200M+ in native USDC and USDT across chains. Large bridge transactions (>$1M USDC) execute with minimal slippage on Stargate. Across uses relayer capital which works well for typical amounts but can have liquidity constraints for very large bridges.
Backed by LayerZero infrastructure for messaging. Stargate is built on LayerZero, the largest cross-chain messaging protocol with $50B+ in lifetime volume. The LayerZero backing provides messaging reliability and integration with the broader LayerZero ecosystem (token transfers, programmable messaging). Across uses UMA's optimistic oracle for verification which is a different and arguably more decentralized model but with smaller surrounding ecosystem.
Want to know if AI engines cite your protocol?
Run a free 8-module Crawlux audit. Built for Web3.
Free tier. No card. ChatGPT, Perplexity and Claude citations checked.
What each does well
The skimmable view: top strengths of each, in five bullets.
Across
What Across does well
- Intent-based 1-3 minute bridges
- Lower fees (0.05-0.15%)
- Better DeFi aggregator integration
- UMA optimistic oracle verification
- Cleaner economics for relayers
Stargate
What Stargate does well
- 30+ chains supported
- Deep stablecoin pool liquidity
- LayerZero infrastructure backing
- Better for non-EVM chains
- Δ-Bridge unified liquidity model
Across vs Stargate scorecard
Public-data comparison across the metrics that matter.
Live · Updated 1m ago| Metric | Across | Stargate |
|---|---|---|
| Launched | Aug 2022 (V1); V3 Aug 2024 | Mar 2022 |
| Architecture | Intent-based with relayers + UMA optimistic oracle | LayerZero messaging + Δ-Bridge unified liquidity |
| Native token | ACX (governance, fee discount) | STG (governance, veSTG) |
| Token supply | 1B ACX max | 1B STG max |
| Chains supported | ~15-20 EVM chains | 30+ chains (EVM and non-EVM) |
| Typical bridge time | 1-3 minutes | 5-15 minutes |
| Typical fee | 0.05-0.15% | 0.10-0.30% |
| Native asset support | ETH, USDC, USDT, WBTC, DAI etc. | ETH, USDC, USDT, FRAX and others (varies by chain) |
| TVL / capital deployedLIVE | $4.29B | $4.38B |
| Cross-chain messaging | Limited (focused on bridging) | LayerZero (full messaging stack) |
| Auditors of record | OpenZeppelin, ChainSecurity, Halborn | Quantstamp, Halborn |
| Major exploit history | No fund-loss exploits | No fund-loss exploits |
// Sources
Verified using these public datasets
DefiLlama
Cross-chain bridge and oracle metrics
CoinGecko
Token economics and circulating supply
L2Beat
Bridge and DA security ratings
All numbers cross-referenced against the sources above. Last refreshed .
How Across and Stargate work
How Across works
Across uses an intent-based architecture. User submits bridge request specifying source chain, destination chain, asset and amount. Relayers fulfill the bridge on the destination chain immediately by sending the user's requested asset from their own inventory. The relayer then claims reimbursement plus fee from the source chain via UMA's optimistic oracle (the canonical bridge route). If the bridge request is invalid, anyone can dispute via UMA's optimistic oracle within a challenge window. The combination delivers fast destination-chain delivery (relayers fronting capital) with optimistic security (UMA verification). ACX token launched 2022 with utility for governance and fee discounts. The system has scaled to handle most major EVM L2 routes efficiently.
How Stargate works
Stargate is built on LayerZero messaging protocol. The Δ-Bridge architecture maintains shared liquidity pools across all supported chains. When a user bridges, the source chain pool is debited and the destination chain pool is credited with messaging via LayerZero confirming the transfer. The unified liquidity model means any chain's pool can serve any other chain's bridge request. STG token holders provide liquidity to Δ-Bridge pools and earn fees. veSTG (vote-escrowed STG) holders direct STG emissions and earn protocol revenue share. The model creates aligned economics: liquidity providers earn from bridging fees in proportion to their LP. Stargate has expanded support to 30+ chains including non-EVM destinations (Aptos via custom integration).
Audit your project's token schema in 90 seconds
Crawlux runs the same FinancialProduct and CryptoExchange schema validation we apply to top 50 crypto sites.
Free • 8 modules • Built crypto-native
Token economics: Across vs Stargate
Across tokenomics
ACX launched November 2022 with 1B max supply. Distribution: 50% to community (airdrops, grants, ongoing rewards), 25% to investors (vested), 25% to founders and team (vested). ACX utility: governance voting on Across protocol parameters, fee discounts for stakers. The token has more limited utility than some bridge tokens but the core protocol economics work without heavy token incentives - relayers compete on cost and capital efficiency.
Stargate tokenomics
STG launched March 2022 with 1B max supply. Distribution: 17.5% to launch auction, 16% to private sale (vested), 17.5% to liquidity bootstrapping, 17.5% to community, 12.5% to advisors, 9.5% to team (vested), 9.5% to bonding pools. STG utility: liquidity providers stake STG for higher rewards on Δ-Bridge pools. veSTG (vote-escrowed STG, lock up to 3 years) directs emissions and earns 100% of protocol fees. The veSTG model creates strong long-term alignment for committed token holders.
Security history and audits
Across security record
Across has been audited by OpenZeppelin, ChainSecurity and Halborn. There have been no fund-loss exploits since V1 launch in August 2022. The UMA optimistic oracle verification is structurally different from validator-set bridges (which is what most bridge exploits attack). UMA's economic security has been tested in multiple disputes and has held. The relayer model means relayers bear the risk of accepting an invalid bridge request and losing their capital, which incentivizes correct verification. Bug bounty via Immunefi pays up to $2M.
Stargate security record
Stargate has been audited by Quantstamp and Halborn. There have been no fund-loss exploits since launch in March 2022. The bigger structural concern with Stargate is the LayerZero dependency: if LayerZero's messaging infrastructure had a vulnerability it would propagate to Stargate. LayerZero itself has been heavily audited and has run without exploits but is a single point of dependence. Bridges using validator sets (which Stargate's LayerZero relies on) have historically been the largest source of crypto hacks ($2B+ in lost funds across all bridge exploits). Bug bounty via Immunefi pays up to $15M.
// AB's take
Crypto infrastructure is the most competitive sector in Web3 right now. Across and Stargate both have real engineering teams. The win condition isn't tech, it's developer experience and integrator count. Whichever ecosystem ships better SDKs in 2026 wins by 2028.
User experience and real fees
Across UX
Across UX is excellent for typical bridging. The interface at across.to is clean and lets users select source chain, destination chain, asset and amount in a few clicks. Bridge time is 1-3 minutes for most routes which feels near-instant compared to traditional bridges. Wallet support: MetaMask, Rabby, Rainbow and most major wallets. Mobile-friendly. The integration via DeFi aggregators (Bungee, Socket, Li.Fi) means many users use Across without explicitly choosing it - the aggregator routes through Across when it offers the best price/speed.
Stargate UX
Stargate UX is solid but bridges feel slower (5-15 minutes typical) than Across. The interface at stargate.finance handles the broader chain set well including non-EVM destinations. The pool model means users can sometimes see liquidity warnings if a specific chain pool is low. Wallet support universal. Mobile-friendly. The Δ-Bridge architecture is conceptually elegant but creates some UX edge cases when pool imbalances cause higher slippage on specific routes.
Who should use Across, who should use Stargate
| User type | Recommendation |
|---|---|
| Frequent EVM L2 bridgers | Across. Faster and cheaper for typical routes. |
| Large stablecoin bridgers | Stargate. Deeper pools handle $1M+ amounts with minimal slippage. |
| Multi-chain users including non-EVM | Stargate. 30+ chains vs Across's 15-20 EVM-focused. |
| DeFi aggregator users | Across. Default routing for many aggregators based on best price/speed. |
| Liquidity providers seeking yield | Stargate. Δ-Bridge pools earn fees from bridging volume in proportion to LP. |
| Cross-chain dApp builders | Stargate. LayerZero infrastructure provides full messaging stack beyond bridging. |
// AB's take
Infrastructure SEO is technical content first, marketing copy second. Across and Stargate both have docs sites that rank. If you're competing, ship better technical docs with better internal linking than they have. That's the moat.
Final verdict on Across vs Stargate
Across wins for typical EVM L2 bridging. The intent-based architecture delivers materially faster bridges with lower fees. For users moving capital between major L2s frequently Across is the right tool and the integration with DeFi aggregators makes it the default for many cross-chain transactions. Stargate wins for breadth. The 30+ chain coverage, deep stablecoin pools and LayerZero messaging integration serve use cases Across does not. For non-EVM chains or large stablecoin bridges Stargate is often the only viable option. These bridges target overlapping but distinct needs. Across for fast EVM L2 bridging. Stargate for chain breadth and large-amount stablecoin transfers. Many DeFi users use both depending on the specific bridge route and amount.
Both will be around in 2 years. Pick based on which fits your stack today.
Frequently asked
01 Why is Across faster than Stargate?
02 Are bridges safer than they used to be?
03 What is the difference between Stargate and LayerZero?
04 Can I bridge between non-EVM chains with Across?
05 Is veSTG worth locking long-term?
About AB
How Crawlux helps infrastructure protocols rank
Crypto infrastructure protocols (oracles, bridges, restaking, data availability) lose discovery to Web2 SEO patterns that miss what makes their tech distinct. Crawlux audits the AEO patterns for 'best oracle' or 'cross-chain bridge' queries, FinancialProduct schema validation, security audit citations and the technical SEO that lets your docs rank.
Module 01
AEO and AI visibility
Test how your protocol ranks in ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude and Google AI Overviews. Get the queries you appear for and the ones competitors steal from you.
Module 02
Token schema validation
FinancialProduct, CryptoExchange and DeFi-specific structured data validation. Catch schema gaps that block your token from rich snippets and AI engine citations.
Module 03
Backlink toxicity
Crypto-specific link analysis that catches paid placements, PBNs and toxic crypto directories generic tools miss. Plus referring domain quality scoring tuned for Web3.
Module 04
Technical SEO and Core Web Vitals
LCP, CLS, INP plus crypto-tuned crawlability checks. Find the technical issues blocking your dApp landing page from ranking and converting.
All 8 modules. Free tier. No credit card.
Get a full report covering AEO citation rate, schema validation, backlinks, Core Web Vitals, infrastructure competitor analysis and a 90-day action plan.
Average audit completes in 4 minutes
Continue exploring
More from the Crawlux blog. Picked because they relate to Cross-chain bridge.
Audit module
Token Schema Audit
Schema validation for infrastructure protocols including oracles bridges and restaking.
Solution
Infrastructure SEO Audit
SEO and AEO for crypto infrastructure including oracles bridges and restaking protocols.
Comparison
Chainlink vs Pyth
Oracle networks compared on data sources, speed and chain coverage.
Comparison
EigenLayer vs Karak
Restaking protocols compared on AVS support, security and yields.
Sources and methodology
All data points cited in this Across vs Stargate comparison were verified against the public datasets listed below. On-chain figures cross-referenced via Etherscan and chain-specific block explorers. Token economics pulled from project documentation and verified third-party trackers. Audit firm references cited from each protocol's public security disclosures. Last verified .
- [01]DefiLlama · Cross-chain bridge and oracle metrics
- [02]CoinGecko · Token economics and circulating supply
- [03]L2Beat · Bridge and DA security ratings
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Crypto investments carry risk. Always do your own research before making any financial decision.
Join the discussion
Disagree with the verdict? Have data we missed? Drop your take below. We read every comment.
Building or marketing a Cross-chain bridge project?
Run a free Crawlux Crawlux audit audit on your site. See how it ranks for AI search and crypto SEO. No credit card. Full 8-module audit on the free tier.
200+ Web3 brands audited · No card · Cancel anytime