Across Protocol vs Hyperlane

Across Protocol4.3/5

VS

Hyperlane3.8/5

Feature	Across ProtocolVisit	HyperlaneVisit
Ratings
Our score	4.3/5	3.8/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Security	4.0	3.5
Speed	5.0	4.0
Fees	4.5	3.5
Chain coverage	4.0	4.5
Ease of use	4.5	3.5
Specs
KYC required	No	No
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	150
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	Configurable Interchain Security Modules (ISMs)
Audited	Yes	Yes
Token	ACX	HYPER
Intent-based	Yes	Not disclosed
Native token transfers (no wrapped tokens)	Yes	Yes
Max transfer	$50,000,000	Not disclosed
Company
Founded	2021	2022
Headquarters	—	United States
Investors	Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Multicoin Capital +3	Variant, Asymmetric, Blockdaemon, Circle +9
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	Permissionless deployment to any chain without central governance approval Over 150 supported blockchains across 7 virtual machine architectures Customizable security models tailored per individual bridge route No mandatory KYC requirements to deploy or interact onchain
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	Security depends on individual route configurations rather than a unified chain consensus Core team discontinued managed relayer support for over 20 networks in 2026 Warp Routes expose users to wrapped-asset depeg and liquidity shortfall risks
Best for	Fast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfers	Appchain and rollup developers, Protocols managing multichain governance, DeFi teams needing custom routing

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