Across Protocol vs Chainlink CCIP

Across Protocol4.3/5

VS

Chainlink CCIP4.1/5

Feature	Across ProtocolVisit	Chainlink CCIPVisit
Ratings
Our score	4.3/5	4.1/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Security	4.0	5.0
Speed	5.0	3.5
Fees	4.5	3.5
Chain coverage	4.0	4.5
Ease of use	4.5	3.0
Specs
KYC required	No	Not disclosed
Design	Intent-based	Messaging protocol
Chains	Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Other	Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, Solana, Hyperliquid, Other
Chains supported	27	80
Typical fee	Network gas and relayer fee with zero aggregator markup	Not disclosed
Typical transfer time	1.2 seconds	Not disclosed
Security model	UMA optimistic oracle	Chainlink oracle networks plus a separate Risk Management Network
Audited	Yes	Yes
Token	ACX	LINK
Intent-based	Yes	Not disclosed
Native token transfers (no wrapped tokens)	Yes	Yes
Max transfer	$50,000,000	Not disclosed
Company
Founded	2021	2023
Headquarters	—	United States
Investors	Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Multicoin Capital +3	Not disclosed
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Average transfer speed of 1.2 seconds across supported chains Over $40B in cumulative volume processed without loss of user deposits Transfers use native assets without relying on wrapped tokens No identity verification (KYC) required to bridge	Secures over $85 billion in cross-chain value across 80+ networks Completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination by Deloitte & Touche LLP Requires consensus across 16 independent oracle operators by default Programmable transfers execute contract instructions and move assets in one call
Cons	July 2026 Solana relayer exploit resulted in $3.35M in stolen relayer funds Relies on third-party relayers maintaining destination chain liquidity Off-chain relayer bugs can temporarily pause specific chain routes ACX governance token undergoing sunsetting and corporate restructuring	Full finality requirements result in slower settlement than intent-based bridges Security depends on the collective liveness and integrity of oracle node operators Token pool risk remains with custom issuer smart contract implementations
Best for	Fast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfers	Cross-chain DeFi asset issuers, Institutions requiring automated compliance, Developers deploying multichain smart contracts

Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.

More comparisons