Across vs NEAR Intents: Bridge or swap layer? (2026)

Across and NEAR Intents both use intent-based systems, but they focus on different jobs. Across is a cross-chain bridge: bonded relayers fill transfers on the destination chain, and the protocol uses an optimistic oracle. It also offers a bridge-and-swap flow and an API for apps. Its chain list includes Ethereum, several rollups, Solana, Tron and Hyperliquid.

NEAR Intents is a cross-chain swap layer where market makers compete to fill orders. Its listed networks include Bitcoin, XRPL, Litecoin, Dogecoin, Sui, TON and Stellar, alongside familiar chains such as Ethereum and Solana. The near.com account also brings swaps together with crypto, tokenized assets, perps and earn positions. Choose based on whether you need a focused bridge or a broader account and swap experience.

Neither service publishes a fee table, so there is no clear published basis for declaring one cheaper. Across says it aims to minimize costs and does not add aggregator markup or hidden fees. Its transfer quote shows the route cost before you sign; that can include the relayer fee, destination-chain gas covered by the relayer and any swap pricing. Your own origin-chain gas is separate.

NEAR Intents also leaves fees unpublished. Its swap screen shows an exchange rate, a maximum slippage setting and the minimum amount you will receive. Since market makers compete to fill orders, the spread is reflected in the quote. Network fees on the chains involved may also apply. Compare the final amount and route details on each service for the same asset pair and amount, and review them before confirming. A quoted price is more useful than an assumed fee rate, especially when swaps or less liquid assets are involved.

Across has two audits listed, but the scope and dates are not published. Across says transfers are verified onchain and that it has no multisig custody or single point of failure; its claim that no user funds have been lost is a project claim, not an independent finding. Its bridge design still depends on smart contracts, optimistic verification, relayers and liquidity.

NEAR Intents has no audits listed, and its homepage does not point to audit reports. Its swaps involve smart-contract, solver and settlement risks, while the custody design and incident history are not described. Its confidentiality controls are described without technical detail or independent review. Both services carry cross-chain risk, and the information published here does not establish that either is risk-free. For NEAR Intents, tokenized stocks, bonds, metals and perpetuals can also bring regulatory and counterparty risks that vary by region. Check local rules before using those products.

Across is the better fit if your main goal is to move tokens between supported chains and you want transfer history, pools and a bridge-and-swap option. Its app says transfers can arrive quickly, but the 1.2-second average is a claim made by Across, not a guarantee for every route. Its listed ease-of-use score is 8.5, compared with 7.5 for NEAR Intents.

Choose NEAR Intents if you want market makers to compete on swap orders or value having swaps, sends, tokenized assets, perps and earn positions in one account. It lists more TVL, but that alone does not show which service is better for a particular route or asset. Some advertised features, including banking and spending and AI financial insights, are marked as coming soon. For either option, confirm supported assets, the final quote and any applicable network costs before proceeding.