Across Protocol vs Squid: Speed vs chain coverage
Across Protocol is an intent-based bridge for transfers across Ethereum, Solana, and Layer 2 networks. Reach is the main difference between the two systems. Squid functions as a cross-chain swap aggregator that routes tokens across more than 100 blockchains and 20,000 assets, connecting EVM, Cosmos, Solana, Bitcoin, and XRPL, whereas Across supports 27 chains.
Transfers on Across average 1.2 seconds. Squid averages roughly five seconds. Across charges network gas and a relayer fee with zero aggregator markup, while Squid charges a 0% protocol fee on stablecoin swaps alongside variable routing fees and gas on non-stablecoin paths. Both systems deliver native-token transfers without wrapped assets. Across relies on UMA optimistic verification and third-party relayers. Squid routes through DEX liquidity and transport protocols, meaning route security varies.
Quick verdict
The deciding difference is control over route design. Across uses a defined intent-based bridge with UMA optimistic verification, single-sided liquidity pools, and relayers that release destination assets before repayment. Squid aggregates liquidity across more than 130 DEXs and transport layers like Axelar and CCTP before solvers fulfill the route. That gives Squid wider chain coverage. Across offers a more consistent bridge model. Both transfer native assets, but Squid's security depends on the selected route and Across relies on relayer liquidity. Across recorded a July 2026 exploit involving $3.35 million in stolen relayer funds.
Choose Across Protocol if the route involves Ethereum, Solana, or other supported chains, speed near 1.2 seconds matters, and a single UMA-based bridge model is preferred. Its Transit integration also supports stablecoin transfers up to $50 million at locked rates. Across requires no KYC and charges network gas plus a relayer fee.
Choose Squid if the route needs Bitcoin, Cosmos, or another network beyond Across's coverage, or if the swap is stablecoin to stablecoin. Squid charges a 0% protocol fee on those swaps and provides APIs and SDKs. Non-stablecoin routes carry variable routing fees and use route-specific security.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 4.3/5 | 4.4/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Security | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Speed | 5.0 | 4.5 |
| Fees | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Chain coverage | 4.0 | 5.0 |
| Ease of use | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Specs | ||
| KYC required | No | Not disclosed |
| Design | Intent-based | Aggregator |
| Chains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Other | Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, Cosmos, Other |
| Chains supported | 27 | 100 |
| Typical fee | Network gas and relayer fee with zero aggregator markup | 0% on stablecoin swaps; variable route and gas fees |
| Typical transfer time | 1.2 seconds | 5s |
| Security model | UMA optimistic oracle | Depends on the underlying route |
| Audited | Yes | Yes |
| Token | ACX | QUID |
| Intent-based | Yes | Yes |
| Native token transfers (no wrapped tokens) | Yes | Yes |
| Max transfer | $50,000,000 | Not disclosed |
| Company | ||
| Founded | 2021 | 2022 |
| Headquarters | — | Virgin Islands, British |
| Investors | Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Multicoin Capital +3 | North Island Ventures, Polychain Capital |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | Fast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfers | Non-EVM to EVM token traders, DeFi users moving stablecoins fee-free, Developers embedding cross-chain swap widgets |
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 cheaper than Squid?
Squid is cheaper on stablecoin-to-stablecoin swaps because its protocol fee is 0%, while Across charges a relayer fee alongside network gas. Non-stablecoin Squid routes have variable fees, so the two fee models differ by route.
Which is faster, Across Protocol or Squid?
Across Protocol is faster on the stated averages, at 1.2 seconds compared with roughly five seconds for Squid. Actual Squid execution also depends on solver and route conditions.
Which supports more chains, Across Protocol or Squid?
Squid supports more chains, with over 100 compared with Across Protocol's 27. Squid also reaches Bitcoin, Cosmos, XRPL, Solana, and other non-EVM ecosystems.
Do Across Protocol and Squid use wrapped tokens?
Neither relies on wrapped tokens for its stated transfers. Across relayers release native assets on the destination chain, while Squid settles swaps as native assets.
Which has the more consistent security model?
Across Protocol uses UMA optimistic verification and relayers, while Squid's security depends on the bridges, solvers, and other components selected for each route. Squid lists nine security audits, while Across has an OpenZeppelin audit and a July 2026 relayer exploit involving $3.35 million.