Across vs Arbitrum Bridge Across leads by 24 points.
Across scores 24 points above Arbitrum Bridge, led by route coverage and transfer speed. Across ranks #2 and Arbitrum Bridge #8 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Across79
vs
ARArbitrum Bridge55
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #8 of 18
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7955+24.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user optionsArbitrum BridgeScore 55Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ Arbitrum movementStrength: Trust — 10/10Watch-out: 7-day challenge delay on direct withdrawals (use third-party bridges for fast exits)
Quick facts
At a glance
FactAcrossArbitrum Bridge
PricingSnapshotAcross 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).Arbitrum docs, "Quickstart: Arbitrum bridge" (docs.arbitrum.io/arbitrum-bridge/quickstart.md, fetched 30 September 2026): no bridge fee is stated on that page; the user pays gas - "You’ll need the native currency of the parent chain to bridge your assets to the destination chain." A withdrawal needs a second, parent-chain transaction after the challenge period: "Upon confirmation (about one week later), you can execute them" (docs.arbitrum.io cross-chain messaging page). No dollar cost is published on either page, so the deposit and withdrawal dollar ranges the previous note carried are not repeated.
Asset coverageEditorialCross-chain token transfers across supported bridge routesETH and any ERC-20 with a registered token bridge contract
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Across
79#2 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Across if route coverage matters most — it scores 7/10 to Arbitrum Bridge's 2/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Speed — 10/10
Tradeoff
Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
AR
Arbitrum Bridge
55#8 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Arbitrum Bridge if trust matters most — it scores 10/10 to Across's 7/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Trust — 10/10
Tradeoff
7-day challenge delay on direct withdrawals (use third-party bridges for fast exits)
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
AcrossLeads
Choose Across if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 2/10 for Arbitrum Bridge (weight 28)
Transfer speed: 10/10 against 2/10 for Arbitrum Bridge (weight 22)
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
ARArbitrum Bridge
Choose Arbitrum Bridge if trust matters most
Trust: 10/10 against 7/10 for Across (weight 26)
Arbitrum BridgeScore 55Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ Arbitrum movementStrength: Trust — 10/10Watch-out: 7-day challenge delay on direct withdrawals (use third-party bridges for fast exits)
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Route coverage
by 5 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Across leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge2/10 out of 10
Route clarity
weight 5.8 of 86Tie
Across9/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge9/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 8 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Across leads
Across10/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge2/10 out of 10
Trust
by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Arbitrum Bridge leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge10/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86
Across20/20Arbitrum Bridge14/20
Across leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Across19.5/30Arbitrum Bridge13.8/30
Across leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Across2.7/10Arbitrum Bridge2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Across6.4/8Arbitrum Bridge3.2/8
Across leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Across6.9/18Arbitrum Bridge12.5/18
Arbitrum Bridge leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Across unless the term Arbitrum Bridge leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Arbitrum Bridge if trust matters most — it scores 10/10 to Across's 7/10 there (weight 26).
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.
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%).
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Across scores 24 points above Arbitrum Bridge, led by route coverage and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Across 79 (rank 2 of 18 bridges), Arbitrum Bridge 55 (rank 8 of 18).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
