Across scores 17 points above Bungee, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Across ranks #2 and Bungee #5 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Across79
vs
Bungee62
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #5 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.2
Reproduced gap+17.7
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7962+17.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
EvidenceEvidence evidence high vs evidence medium — how well each score is supported, not the score itself
Across's lead rests on lighter criteria: Bungee is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Across leads on (26).
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user optionsBungeeScore 62Trading app with cross-chain swaps into any token, routed through SocketStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Default route selection is automatic — power users may want to override
Quick facts
At a glance
FactAcrossBungee
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).Bungee's documentation link (docs.bungee.exchange) now resolves to Socket's docs. Socket, "Fees & Monetization" (docs.socket.tech/about/fees-monetization, fetched 30 September 2026): "For users, Socket does not charge any additional fees. All onchain execution costs are covered within the quoted fees. Socket does not add any markup or hidden fees to transactions." Integrators may charge their own fee ("integrations are free to implement fee charging for their own services"). The Bungee front end (bungee.exchange) renders client-side and now titles itself "Bungee | Infinite ways to play the market", so no live Bungee quote was read.
Asset coverageEditorialCross-chain token transfers across supported bridge routesAggregated bridge and DEX swap routes across Socket-supported chains
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Across
79#2 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Across if trust matters most — it scores 7/10 to Bungee's 6/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Speed — 10/10
Tradeoff
Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
Bungee
62#5 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Bungee if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Across's 7/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 8/10
Tradeoff
Default route selection is automatic — power users may want to override
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
AcrossLeads
Choose Across if trust matters most
Trust: 7/10 against 6/10 for Bungee (weight 26)
Route clarity: 9/10 against 6/10 for Bungee (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 10/10 against 7/10 for Bungee (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
Bungee
Choose Bungee if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 8/10 against 7/10 for Across (weight 28)
BungeeScore 62Trading app with cross-chain swaps into any token, routed through SocketStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Default route selection is automatic — power users may want to override
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 1 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Bungee leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Bungee8/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Across leads
Across9/10 out of 10
Bungee6/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 3 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Across leads
Across10/10 out of 10
Bungee7/10 out of 10
Trust
by 1 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Across leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Bungee6/10 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
Across20/20Bungee14/20
Across leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Across19.5/30Bungee16.3/30
Across leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Across2.7/10Bungee2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Across6.4/8Bungee3.2/8
Across leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Across6.9/18Bungee12.5/18
Bungee leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Across unless the term Bungee leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Bungee if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Across's 7/10 there (weight 28).
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.
Scored by Trust posture · 26% (Across 7/10, Bungee 6/10)
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 17 points above Bungee, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Across 79 (rank 2 of 18 bridges), Bungee 62 (rank 5 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
