Hyperlane vs Stargate V2: Which bridge fits your route? (2026)

Hyperlane is broader in purpose: it supports token transfers and arbitrary messages, including use cases such as cross-chain swap routing, multichain asset issuance and governance. Developers can deploy without approval from the core team or governance, and choose the validators, relayers and contract extensions for a route. The homepage cites 150+ chains and seven VM environments. Stargate V2 is more focused on moving supported assets, including native USDC, USDT, ETH, BTC and OFTs without wrapping. It is built on LayerZero and its homepage claims 80+ chains. The tracked lists for both projects cover fewer networks than those headline claims, so confirm that your exact route is available. In short, Hyperlane offers more flexibility for custom applications; Stargate offers a more specific asset-bridging proposition.

Neither project publishes specific transfer fee figures. Hyperlane users would normally pay source-chain gas and any interchain gas payment for the relayer; the actual amounts depend on the route and should appear in the Nexus interface or wallet confirmation. Stargate describes itself as a low-fee bridge, but that is a marketing claim, not a verified price comparison. Its costs can include a protocol fee, messaging costs and gas on the source and destination chains. Stargate says its app provides a quote before confirmation. In both cases, check the full quote for your route before approving a transfer, and account for the network gas shown by your wallet. Fees for Hyperlane-as-a-Service are also not published, so builders considering that support should check its pricing directly.

Hyperlane has no audits listed in its public project details, and its homepage names none. That does not prove its code has never been audited, but you should look for audit reports before relying on a route. Its permissionless model also means each route’s security depends on the validators and relayers selected by its deployer. Stargate V2 has two audits listed, though the auditors and findings are not named. Audits do not remove smart-contract risk. Stargate also depends on LayerZero for messaging, while its liquidity-pool design means available liquidity can limit transfer size or affect pricing. Both bridges involve smart contracts and multiple chains; a problem in a component or route can put transfers at risk. Verify the route and wallet approvals, and avoid transferring more than you can afford to lose.

Choose Hyperlane if you are building a cross-chain application, need arbitrary messages rather than only asset transfers, or value permissionless deployment across different VM environments. Be prepared to assess the validator and relayer setup for the specific route; Hyperlane’s flexibility puts more responsibility on deployers. Choose Stargate V2 if your main goal is transferring one of its supported assets between available networks and you want a bridge centered on native-asset transfers. Its two listed audits may be a useful point of comparison, but check their reports rather than treating the audit count as a guarantee. Stargate’s TVL is about $81.2 million versus Hyperlane’s about $72.8 million, but TVL alone does not establish route safety or liquidity for your particular transfer. For either bridge, confirm the chain pair, asset, quote and wallet approvals before proceeding.