Across Protocol vs Stargate

How Across Protocol vs Stargate compare on our ratings, bridge specs, funding, pros and cons.

VS
Feature
Ratings
Our score4.3/54.1/5
User ratingNo reviews yetNo reviews yet
Security4.04.0
Speed5.04.0
Fees4.54.0
Chain coverage4.04.5
Ease of use4.54.0
Specs
KYC required No No
DesignIntent-basedLiquidity network
ChainsEthereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, OtherEthereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, Other
Chains supported2750
Typical feeNetwork gas and relayer fee with zero aggregator markupNot disclosed
Typical transfer time1.2 secondsNot disclosed
Security modelUMA optimistic oracleLayerZero messaging
Audited Yes Yes
TokenACXSTG
Intent-based YesNot disclosed
Native token transfers (no wrapped tokens) Yes Yes
Max transfer$50,000,000Not disclosed
Company
Founded20212022
Headquarters——
InvestorsParadigm, Bain Capital Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Multicoin Capital +3Not 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
  • Connects over 50 blockchains via LayerZero messaging
  • Bridges native assets directly without wrapped token depeg risks
  • No KYC checks or account registration required
  • Bug bounty program offering rewards up to $10 million on Immunefi
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
  • Dependent on LayerZero validator and relayer infrastructure
  • Subject to transfer delays or higher fees during pool liquidity imbalances
  • Phishing attacks targeted governance participants on Snapshot in December 2023
  • Deprecates low-volume chain endpoints periodically, requiring liquidity provider withdrawals
Best forFast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfersDeFi traders moving native stablecoins, Developers needing omnichain asset routing, Cross-chain transfers without wrapped tokens

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