Provider at a glance
- Category
- Bridges
- Entity
- All 2 zkSync products
- Official website
- portal.zksync.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 50 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
zkSync Bridge
Canonical bridge for zkSync Era
Bridges
#13 Overall
Ranked #13 of 18 bridges in the published ranking
50
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is zkSync Bridge right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Route coverage1/10 here; Stargate scores 8
- Trust posture8/10 here; the category best is 10
- Route clarity6/10 here; the category best is 9
- Transfer speed5/10 here; Synapse scores 7
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: 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 zkSync Bridge cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
The fee alone, plus network gas.
- Your monthly volume
- $1k
- Bridge fee
- 0%
How safe is zkSync Bridge?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to zkSync Bridge
Compare all 4- 11Synapse1 point above · stronger on route coverage (6 against 1)51
- 12Stargate1 point above · stronger on route coverage (8 against 1)51
- 14WormholeLevel on score · stronger on route coverage (7 against 1)50
For your setup
Find out if zkSync Bridge fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where zkSync Bridge 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 zkSync Bridge ranks #13
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.7 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
281+0.907.010#16/18Loading evidence…
246+4.616.09#9/18Loading evidence…
225+3.525.510#10/18Loading evidence…
268+6.665.010#5/18Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Stargate, #12
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 48–51 and ranks #11–#14
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of zkSync Bridge’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Route coverage 1 → 2 on its ladder · passes Stargate+151#13 → #11
Trust posture 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Stargate+151#13 → #11
Route clarity 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Stargate+151#13 → #12
Execution speed 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Stargate+151#13 → #12
Route coverage 1 → 0 on its ladder · Wormhole passes it−148#13 → #14
Route clarity 6 → 5 on its ladder · Wormhole passes it−148#13 → #14
Execution speed 5 → 4 on its ladder · Wormhole passes it−148#13 → #14
Smallest climb: route coverage 1 → 2 passes Stargate, #12.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Route coverage — 1/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Trust posture — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Route clarity — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Execution speed — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Smaller dapp ecosystem than the largest L2s
- zkSync uses its own VM (not exact EVM equivalence) — some contract differences
Competitive position
Where zkSync Bridge 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#7 / 1814.0 of 20 · best 20.0
Published criteria#15 / 1811.8 of 30 · best 19.5
Friction#1 / 182.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#5 / 183.2 of 8 · best 6.4
Measured data#1 / 1812.5 of 18 · pool best
Where zkSync Bridge leads
- Trust posture#5 / 18
Where it trails
- Route coverage#16 / 18
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.
Wormhole#14 of 18 · score 50 · same score
zkSync Bridge leads on
- Route clarity6 vs 5
- Execution speed5 vs 4
- Trust posture8 vs 7
Wormhole leads on
- Route coverage7 vs 1
Largest single reason zkSync Bridge is ahead: measured data (+14.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since zkSync Bridge's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas.
Stargate#12 of 18 · score 51 · 1.0 point ahead
zkSync Bridge leads on
- Route clarity6 vs 3
- Execution speed5 vs 4
- Trust posture8 vs 4
Stargate leads on
- Route coverage8 vs 1
Largest single reason Stargate is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since zkSync Bridge's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas.
Synapse#11 of 18 · score 51 · 1.0 point ahead
zkSync Bridge leads on
- Route clarity6 vs 3
- Trust posture8 vs 4
Synapse leads on
- Route coverage6 vs 1
- Execution speed7 vs 5
Largest single reason Synapse is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: not compared, since zkSync Bridge's figure is the fee alone, plus network gas.
Against the leader
86 vs 50 · gap 36.0Why Relay ranks above zkSync Bridge
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 36.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRelayGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.020.0−15.6, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight11.817.3−14.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight3.25.6−6.2, worse
Measured data · 21% weight12.512.5same
Published criterionThisRelayPoints
Route coverage · w2818−6.27, worse
Route clarity · w2467−0.77, worse
Execution speed · w2259−2.82, worse
Trust posture · w2685+2.50, better
Net5086−36.0
Your scenario
What zkSync Bridge costs on your 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
$1k a month × 12 months × 0% bridge fee = $0.00 / year
Your monthly volume · your input$1k
Bridge fee · published rate0%
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.
$0.00
The fee alone, plus network gas: not a total, and never compared as one.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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #11 to #14 across one-point re-runs
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 1 · 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 6 · 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 5 · 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 8 · 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 (zkSync Bridge 8/10): 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
- ZKsync docs, "Bridging assets" (docs.zksync.io/zksync-protocol/rollup/bridging-assets, fetched 30 September 2026): no bridge fee is stated on that page; withdrawals carry a time cost - "To provide additional security, withdrawals in ZKsync Chains are delayed for 3 hours" - and the finality page (docs.zksync.io/zksync-protocol/rollup/finality) adds that proof generation "typically takes about an hour". The ZKsync Bridge front end (portal.zksync.io/bridge, titled "ZKsync Bridge | Transfer funds between ZKsync and Ethereum") renders client-side, so no live quote was read.zkSync Bridge — official page at docs.zksync.io ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDzkSync Bridge — official page at docs.zksync.io ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, zkSync Era
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- zk-proof cadence governs withdrawals; deposits near-instant.
- Availability note
- Permissionless onchain.
Legal entity on file: zkSync, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with zkSync Bridge: 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 50, #13 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:zksync-bridge:2026.10.18:60f0b488f8c9
Are you zkSync Bridge? 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.