cBridge vs Unit: Which bridge fits your transfer? (2026)

The main difference is where each bridge takes assets. cBridge is a general multi-chain bridge with a long list of EVM networks, layer-2s and sidechains. Its stated features include any-to-any transfers and messaging through Celer IM. This breadth makes it the more relevant option when the source and destination are on different supported networks.

Unit has a narrower purpose: it lets users deposit native assets such as BTC, ETH and SOL onto Hyperliquid and withdraw them again. Its listed source networks include Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana and several others, but public sources say Unit only works with Hyperliquid. The two products are therefore not interchangeable. Choose based on the destination and transfer route you need, rather than TVL alone.

Neither of our reviews gives a usable fee comparison. cBridge has no published fee schedule or percentage; its homepage’s claim that it has the lowest fees is not supported by figures. The review says the app should show the fee and expected amount before confirmation, and users should also account for network gas, which varies by chain.

Unit does not publish deposit or withdrawal charges, minimums or processing times. Users should check its app and documentation for any protocol fees before confirming, and expect source-chain network fees. Since no figures are available for either bridge, it would be misleading to declare one cheaper. Compare the actual quote for the asset, route and amount you plan to use, including gas and the amount expected to arrive.

Both products involve bridge-related risks, but public sources describe different trust arrangements. cBridge has two audits listed, though the auditors and findings are not summarized. Its security is also described as relying on the Celer State Guardian Network, so users depend on smart contracts as well as a validator set. The review does not establish an incident history either way.

Unit has no audits listed, and its published information gives no audit reports. Its operations depend on a guardian set initially led by Unit, Hyperliquid Labs and Infinite Field. The homepage mentions cryptography and distributed consensus, but the review says it offers no technical detail or audit reports. Neither higher TVL nor the presence of a named guardian group proves safety. Check current documentation and only transfer an amount whose loss you can tolerate.

Choose cBridge if you need a route across a wide range of supported networks, especially when a layer-2 or less common chain is involved. It also has the broader feature set, including arbitrary message passing through Celer IM. Its TVL is about $12 million, and the review notes that fees are not published as a schedule and that support may be uneven on some listed chains.

Choose Unit if your goal is specifically to move supported native assets into or out of Hyperliquid. Its TVL is about $975 million, and it lists 14 supported assets, but that figure does not remove its guardian-set dependency or the absence of listed audits. Unit is not a substitute for a bridge between arbitrary networks. For either choice, confirm the route, asset support, quoted costs and current documentation before sending funds.