Across scores 38 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Across ranks #2 and Hop Protocol #18 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Across79
vs
HOHop Protocol41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #18 of 18
Across scores 38 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block.
Across #2 of 1879
HOHop Protocol #18 of 1841
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termAcross leads on 4 of 4 published criteria; Hop Protocol on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermAcrossHop ProtocolWeightPoints
Route coverage7/103/106.7+7.0for Across+3.6 of 32
Trust7/105/106.2+3.2for Across+1.7 of 32
Route clarity9/104/105.8+7.5for Across+3.8 of 32
Transfer speed10/104/105.3+8.2for Across+4.2 of 32
AvailabilityScore dimension201420+15.6for Across
Trust recordScore dimension6.43.28+8.3for Across
No longer operatingEligibilityoperatingsunset 2026-10-23—+26.0for Across
Net of the terms+75.9
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−1.3
Reproduced gap+74.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7941+38.0
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 low — how well each score is supported, not the score itself
Hop Protocol no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and is kept for reference: the engine zeroes its criteria block, whatever its cells say.
A floor bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user optionsHop ProtocolScore 41Withdrawn: the Ethereum-rollup bridge whose site now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactAcrossHop Protocol
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).Withdrawn 23 October 2026 (hop.exchange serves a gambling page; app and route API down), so no current price exists. Last read, kept for the record: Hop user docs, "Fees" (docs.hop.exchange/basics/fees, fetched 30 September 2026; the page reads "Last updated 2 years ago"): "3. Bonder fee (0.05-0.30%)", AMM swap fees of "0.01% - 0.04%" per swap ("L2 <> L2 -> 0.02% - 0.08% swap fees (because two swaps)"), destination gas, and "To prevent spamming there is a minimum fee of $0.25 per Hop transfer." These are documentation figures only: on the same date app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error", the quote API api.hop.exchange returned a Cloudflare origin-DNS error, explorer.hop.exchange returned a Netlify "Site not found" page and hop.exchange served an unrelated gambling page, so no live Hop price could be read.
Asset coverageEditorialCross-chain token transfers across supported bridge routesRollup-specific bridge movement across supported token routes
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
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 Hop Protocol's 3/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Speed — 10/10
Tradeoff
Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
HO
Hop Protocol
41#18 of 18
Pick it when
Hop Protocol leads Across on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026
Tradeoff
Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
AcrossLeads
Choose Across if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 7/10 against 3/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 28)
Trust: 7/10 against 5/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 26)
Route clarity: 9/10 against 4/10 for Hop Protocol (weight 24)
AcrossScore 79Fast route-led bridge for mainstream cross-chain movementStrength: Speed — 10/10Watch-out: Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
HOHop Protocol
Hop Protocol leads Across on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Hop ProtocolScore 41Withdrawn: the Ethereum-rollup bridge whose site now serves a gambling page and whose app and route service are downStrength: Nothing — Hop is not operating; it was withdrawn on 23 October 2026Watch-out: Withdrawn 23 October 2026. On that day hop.exchange (and www.hop.exchange) served an Indonesian slot-gambling page titled "JUDIMPO Situs Judi Mpo Slot 10k dengan Peluang Maxwin Terbaik", app.hop.exchange answered HTTP 400 "unexpected error" and the route API api.hop.exchange/v1/available-routes answered HTTP 530; the same three surfaces had already failed on 2026-09-30. Do not follow hop.exchange: it is not Hop
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 4 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Across leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol3/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 5 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Across leads
Across9/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 6 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Across leads
Across10/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol4/10 out of 10
Trust
by 2 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Across leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Hop Protocol5/10 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
Across20/20Hop Protocol14/20
Across leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Across19.5/30Hop Protocol0/30
Across leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Across2.7/10Hop Protocol2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Across6.4/8Hop Protocol3.2/8
Across leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Across6.9/18Hop Protocol6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Across unless the term Hop Protocol leads on is the one you are buying.
Hop Protocol leads Across on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
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, Hop Protocol 5/10)
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 38 points above Hop Protocol, which no longer operates (since 2026-10-23) and scores zero on the criteria block. Published scores, out of 100: Across 79 (rank 2 of 18 bridges), Hop Protocol 41 (rank 18 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
