Across Protocol vs deBridge: Speed, fees and security
Across Protocol and deBridge are intent-based cross-chain bridges that let relayers or solvers deliver native assets on the destination chain without relying on wrapped tokens. Connecting 27 chains, Across reports a typical transfer time of 1.2 seconds. Meanwhile, deBridge supports 26 networks with a median settlement time of 1.96 seconds.
Fee models between the two protocols differ. While Across charges network gas alongside a relayer fee with zero aggregator markup, deBridge relies on market-maker pricing with spreads starting at 4 bps. Volume on Across exceeds $40 billion across 5 million users, compared to $2.35 billion across 385,000 users on deBridge. Their security records also diverge: Across suffered a July 2026 Solana relayer exploit involving $3.35 million, whereas deBridge lists zero reported exploits across 26 or more audits.
Quick verdict
The main choice is between Across's faster reported transfer time and deBridge's broader route options with a stated minimum spread. Across averages 1.2 seconds, compared with deBridge's 1.96-second median. Both use native-asset settlement without wrapped tokens, but Across depends on relayers and UMA optimistic verification, while deBridge uses decentralized validators and independent solvers. Across also has the more serious recent security event, with $3.35 million in relayer funds stolen in July 2026.
Choose Across Protocol if a 1.2-second typical transfer time, Ethereum Layer 2 coverage, Solana support, and large stablecoin routes up to $50 million matter more than the July 2026 incident. Its zero aggregator markup also separates its stated fee model from deBridge's starting 4 bps spread.
Choose deBridge if non-custodial intent settlement, direct Solana and Tron routes, or the MCP interface for AI-driven transactions is the priority. Its 26-chain network, 1.96-second median settlement, and zero reported exploits across 26 or more audits come with solver-liquidity risk and variable pricing.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 4.3/5 | 4.3/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Security | 4.0 | 4.5 |
| Speed | 5.0 | 4.5 |
| Fees | 4.5 | 4.0 |
| Chain coverage | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Ease of use | 4.5 | 4.0 |
| Specs | ||
| KYC required | No | No |
| Design | Intent-based | Intent-based |
| Chains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Other | Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, Solana, Other |
| Chains supported | 27 | 26 |
| Typical fee | Network gas and relayer fee with zero aggregator markup | 4 bps lowest spread |
| Typical transfer time | 1.2 seconds | 1.96 seconds median |
| Security model | UMA optimistic oracle | Decentralized validators and intent solver settlement without liquidity lockup |
| Audited | Yes | Yes |
| Token | ACX | DBR |
| Intent-based | Yes | Yes |
| Native token transfers (no wrapped tokens) | Yes | Yes |
| Max transfer | $50,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| Company | ||
| Founded | 2021 | 2021 |
| Headquarters | — | — |
| Investors | Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Multicoin Capital +3 | ParaFi Capital, Accomplice, AngelDAO, Animoca Brands +12 |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | Fast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfers | Solana to EVM arbitrageurs, High-speed native asset traders, Developers integrating cross-chain AI agents |
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.
FAQ
Is Across Protocol faster than deBridge?
Yes, Across reports a typical transfer time of 1.2 seconds, compared with deBridge's 1.96-second median settlement time. Actual timing depends on the route and available relayer or solver liquidity.
Which bridge has lower fees, Across Protocol or deBridge?
Across charges network gas and a relayer fee with zero aggregator markup, while deBridge spreads start at 4 bps. The two figures describe different fee models, so route-level costs can differ.
Do Across Protocol and deBridge use wrapped tokens?
No, both use native-asset transfers through intent-based settlement. Across uses relayers and UMA optimistic verification, while deBridge uses independent solvers and decentralized validators.
Which bridge supports more networks?
Across lists 27 supported chains, while deBridge lists 26. Across includes Ethereum, Solana, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon and Avalanche; deBridge includes Ethereum, Solana, Tron and BNB Chain.
Which bridge has the stronger security record?
deBridge has zero reported exploits across 26 or more audits, while Across experienced a July 2026 Solana relayer exploit involving $3.35 million in stolen relayer funds. Across has an OpenZeppelin audit listed, and deBridge provides an audit report.