Across Protocol vs Symbiosis

Across Protocol4.3/5

VS

Symbiosis3.8/5

Feature	Across ProtocolVisit	SymbiosisVisit
Ratings
Our score	4.3/5	3.8/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Security	4.0	3.0
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, Bitcoin, Solana, Tron, TON, BNB Chain, Arbitrum, Base, Polygon, Hyperliquid, 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	Not disclosed
Audited	Yes	Yes
Token	ACX	SIS
Intent-based	Yes	Not disclosed
Native token transfers (no wrapped tokens)	Yes	Yes
Max transfer	$50,000,000	$1,000,000
Company
Founded	2021	2021
Headquarters	—	—
Investors	Paradigm, Bain Capital Crypto, Coinbase Ventures, Multicoin Capital +3	DAO Maker, Avalanche Foundation, BTC Investment, Blockchain.com Ventures +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	Connects non-EVM chains like Bitcoin, Solana, and TON directly with EVM networks Requires no account creation or KYC identity verification to bridge Processed more than $10B in cumulative volume across 50+ supported blockchains Smart routing compares multiple external liquidity sources to minimize slippage
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	Suffered a $336,000 unbacked mint exploit on its Bitcoin bridge in September 2026 Cross-chain transactions remain vulnerable to network congestion delays on non-EVM chains High-volume routes depend heavily on protocol-owned pool liquidity
Best for	Fast cross-chain Layer 2 bridging, DeFi traders avoiding wrapped assets, Large stablecoin institutional transfers	Swapping between EVM networks and non-EVM chains, DeFi traders moving native Bitcoin and Solana assets, Developers integrating cross-chain swaps via SDK

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