Provider at a glance
- Category
- Bridges
- Entity
- All 3 Across products
- Official website
- across.to
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 79 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Across
Intent-based cross-chain bridge
Bridges
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 18 bridges in the published ranking
79
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Across right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Route clarity9/10, the category best
- Transfer speed10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Route coverage7/10 here; Squid Router scores 10
- Trust posture7/10 here; the category best is 10
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best crypto bridge shows where it lands for you.
What will Across cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
How safe is Across?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Across
Compare all 4- 1Relay7 points above · stronger on route coverage (8 against 7)86$0.00
- 3Jumper Exchange16 points below · stronger on route coverage (9 against 7)63$0.00
- 4Squid Router17 points below · stronger on route coverage (10 against 7)62$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Across fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Across lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best crypto bridgeNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Across ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (26.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
287+6.277.010#7/18Loading evidence…
249+6.916.09#1/18Loading evidence…
2210+7.045.510#1/18Loading evidence…
267+5.825.010#6/18Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−7behind Relay, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 78–81 and stays #2
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
The ranking was run again with each of Across’s criterion scores changed on its own, as far as each ladder goes in both directions. None of those changes moves its rank.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Route clarity — 9/10, the category best
- Execution speed — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Route coverage — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Trust posture — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
- Not the strongest fit if niche route breadth matters most
Competitive position
Where Across leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 1820.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#1 / 1819.5 of 30 · pool best
Friction#1 / 182.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 186.4 of 8 · pool best
Measured data#10 / 186.9 of 18 · best 12.5
Where Across leads
- Route clarity#1 / 18
- Execution speed#1 / 18
- Trust posture#6 / 18
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Relay#1 of 18 · score 86 · 7.0 points ahead
Across leads on
- Route clarity9 vs 7
- Execution speed10 vs 9
- Trust posture7 vs 5
Relay leads on
- Route coverage8 vs 7
Largest single reason Relay is ahead: measured data (+14.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Relay's figure is the fee alone, plus relayer markup and network gas.
Jumper Exchange#3 of 18 · score 63 · 16.0 points behind
Across leads on
- Route clarity9 vs 8
- Execution speed10 vs 6
- Trust posture7 vs 5
Jumper Exchange leads on
- Route coverage9 vs 7
Largest single reason Across is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Jumper Exchange's figure is the fee alone, plus the underlying bridge fee, swap fees and network gas.
Squid Router#4 of 18 · score 62 · 17.0 points behind
Across leads on
- Route clarity9 vs 5
- Execution speed10 vs 7
- Trust posture7 vs 5
Squid Router leads on
- Route coverage10 vs 7
Largest single reason Across is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since Squid Router's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas and destination gas.
Against the leader
86 vs 79 · gap 7.0Why Relay ranks above Across
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 7.0 to within rounding. Across is ahead on published criteria (+5.7 in its favour).
DimensionThisRelayGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight19.517.3+5.7, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight6.45.6+2.1, better
Measured data · 21% weight6.912.5−14.6, worse
Published criterionThisRelayPoints
Route coverage · w2878−0.90, worse
Route clarity · w2497+1.54, better
Execution speed · w22109+0.70, better
Trust posture · w2675+1.66, better
Net7986−7.0
Your scenario
Across is not priced for this scenario
Bridge fee on your volume for a year. Excludes network gas and any withdrawal fee. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 0 of 18 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
8 of 18 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
10 of 18 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #2 across every one-point re-run
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.1 listed row in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Route coveragestrength 7 · weight 28Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Route claritystrength 9 · weight 24Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Execution speedstrength 10 · weight 22Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Trust posturestrength 7 · weight 26Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Verification failure (Across 7/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Trust posture · 26%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Route coverage (28%), Route clarity (24%), Execution speed (22%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Across Docs, "Fees in the System" (docs.across.to/introduction/fees, fetched 30 September 2026): the whole fee is the spread, "totalFee = inputAmount - outputAmount", split into an LP Fee (utilization-based, Aave-style two-slope curve, per route) and a Relayer Fee covering destination gas, capital opportunity cost and capital at risk; "If the relayer takes repayment on the origin chain (same chain as the deposit), no crosschain rebalancing is needed, so LP fees are zero." No headline percentage is published. Integrators may add an app fee on top ("Set appFee (a decimal from 0 to 1 , e.g. 0.01 = 1%) and appFeeRecipient on your Swap API request."). Measured the same day on app.across.to/api/suggested-fees for 1000000000 USDC base units (six decimals) Ethereum to Arbitrum: "outputAmount":"999892297", "capitalFeeTotal":"100000", "relayGasFeeTotal":"7703", "lpFeePct":"0", "estimatedFillTimeSec":2 (arithmetic: 1000000000 - 999892297 = 107703 base units, about 1.08 bps of the amount sent, plus origin-chain gas that the endpoint does not return).Across — official page at docs.across.to ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDAcross — official page at docs.across.to ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Supported bridge routes across major chains and rollups
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global EVM bridge users, Mainstream cross-chain participants
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Route support, liquidity, and fees vary by source chain, destination chain, and token pair.
- Availability note
- Bridge access is broadly global onchain, but route quality depends more on chain pair than geography.
Legal entity on file: Across, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Across: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
12 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 79, #2 of 18. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 23 October 2026
2026.10.12A product that no longer operates is never linked, and a row that says it is unavailable must carry a sunset date- fixed Bridges: Hop Protocol carries a sunset date (2026-10-23) and links to its code repository, not hop.exchange. Its criteria block is zeroed and it stays last; it is kept for reference, not as a candidate.
- changed A row with a sunset date draws no outbound link on any surface; the verdict page already withheld it.
- added On every build a check fails when a row's own notes say it is unavailable or not operating and it carries no sunset date, and when any outbound link points at a host on the list of hosts that served gambling or unrelated content.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt bridges:across:2026.10.18:60f0b488f8c9
Are you Across? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of Across , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.