Across Protocol vs LayerZero

Across Protocol4.3/5

VS

LayerZero3.2/5

Feature	Across ProtocolVisit	LayerZeroVisit
Ratings
Our score	4.3/5	3.2/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Security	4.0	2.5
Speed	5.0	3.5
Fees	4.5	3.0
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, Aptos, Tron, Other
Chains supported	27	132
Typical fee	Network gas and relayer fee with zero aggregator markup	Messaging fee plus source-chain gas; native USDT0 transfers carry no USDT0 fee
Typical transfer time	1.2 seconds	Not disclosed
Security model	UMA optimistic oracle	Application-configured decentralized verifier networks (DVNs)
Audited	Yes	Yes
Token	ACX	ZRO
Intent-based	Yes	Not disclosed
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	Citadel Securities, Tether, a16z crypto, Andreessen Horowitz +23
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	Supports 132 blockchains, including EVM networks, Solana, Aptos and Hyperliquid Applications can configure their own verifier networks and quorum OFT supports native-style transfers for issued assets such as USDT0 Permissionless messaging infrastructure is available to application developers
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	A 1-of-1 verifier setup enabled the April 2026 KelpDAO exploit The KelpDAO bridge lost approximately $292 million in April 2026 Fees vary by chain, message and delivery route Applications remain exposed to chosen DVNs and compromised RPC infrastructure
Best for	Fast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfers	Multichain token issuers, Cross-chain application developers, Stablecoin infrastructure teams

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