Across Protocol vs Stargate
How Across Protocol vs Stargate compare on our ratings, bridge specs, funding, pros and cons.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 4.3/5 | 4.1/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Security | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Speed | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Fees | 4.5 | 4.0 |
| Chain coverage | 4.0 | 4.5 |
| Ease of use | 4.5 | 4.0 |
| Specs | ||
| KYC required | No | No |
| Design | Intent-based | Liquidity network |
| Chains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Other | Ethereum, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Polygon, Avalanche, Other |
| Chains supported | 27 | 50 |
| 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 | LayerZero messaging |
| Audited | Yes | Yes |
| Token | ACX | STG |
| 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 | — | — |
| Investors | Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Multicoin Capital +3 | Not disclosed |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | Fast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfers | DeFi 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.

