Across vs Stargate V2: Which Bridge Fits Your Route? (2026)

Across and Stargate V2 both move assets between chains, but they emphasize different transfer designs. Across uses bonded relayers to fill transfers on the destination chain, with an optimistic oracle involved in verification. It also offers a bridge-and-swap flow and a developer API. Across says its average time from confirmation to funds arriving is 1.2 seconds; treat that as a project claim, not a guarantee for every route.

Stargate V2 is built on LayerZero messaging and supports native USDC, USDT, ETH, BTC, and OFTs without wrapping, according to its homepage. Its described features include transaction batching, Hydra, an AI-driven Planning Module, and liquidity provision. Across lists networks including Solana and Tron, while Stargate V2’s tracked list includes networks such as Mantle, Scroll, and Gnosis. Check that your exact asset and destination are supported before starting.

Neither bridge publishes a specific fee schedule. Across says it aims to minimize costs and has no aggregator markup or hidden fees; its quote shows the amount for the selected route. Costs can include a relayer fee, destination-chain gas covered by the relayer, and swap pricing when a swap is part of the transfer. Your own origin-chain gas is separate.

Stargate V2 also leaves fee figures unpublished. Its homepage calls it the lowest-fee cross-chain bridge, but that is a marketing claim, not a verified comparison. Costs can include a protocol fee, cross-chain messaging, and gas on both chains. For either service, compare the displayed quote for the same asset, amount, and route before confirming. Available liquidity can also constrain a Stargate transfer or affect pricing, so a quoted cost may not be the only practical difference between routes.

Both projects have two audits listed, but neither names the auditors or states the audit dates and scope here. An audit is not a guarantee against bugs or loss. Across says transfers are verified onchain and that it has no multisig custody or single point of failure. It also says no user funds have been lost; that remains a project claim. Its bridge design still relies on smart contracts, optimistic verification, relayer behavior, and liquidity pools.

Stargate V2 depends on LayerZero for cross-chain messaging and uses liquidity pools, creating dependencies and route-specific liquidity considerations. The project does not describe its governance setup, regulatory status, or incidents here. Use care with either bridge: verify the network and token, review wallet approvals, and avoid transferring an amount you cannot afford to lose. Check current documentation for audit reports and route details before using either service.

Across is the stronger match if you value an intent-based transfer flow, want to bridge and swap in one operation, or need a network such as Solana, Tron, or Hyperliquid. It also has a slightly higher ease-of-use score in the supplied app data and offers transfer history, pools, rewards, and an integration API. Its listed TVL is lower than Stargate V2’s, so check the quote and route liquidity rather than assuming every transfer will be available on the terms you expect.

Choose Stargate V2 if native transfers of USDC, USDT, ETH, BTC, or OFTs are central to your needs, or if its supported route suits you and you prefer its higher listed TVL. It links developer resources and includes liquidity-provision features. Neither option is a clear fee winner: fees are not published as fixed schedules, so compare live quotes for your specific transfer.