Across scores 38 points above Symbiosis, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Across ranks #2 and Symbiosis #16 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Across79
vs
Symbiosis41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #16 of 18
Across scores 38 points above Symbiosis, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed.
Across #2 of 1879
Symbiosis #16 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 3 of 4 published criteria; Symbiosis on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermAcrossSymbiosisWeightPoints
Route coverage7/109/106.7−3.5for Symbiosis−1.8 of 32
Trust7/103/106.2+6.5for Across+3.3 of 32
Route clarity9/103/105.8+9.0for Across+4.6 of 32
Transfer speed10/106/105.3+5.5for Across+2.8 of 32
AvailabilityScore dimension201420+15.6for Across
Trust recordScore dimension6.43.28+8.3for Across
Net of the terms+41.4
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+41.3
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.
Across's lead rests on lighter criteria: Symbiosis is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Across leads on (26).
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 optionsSymbiosisScore 41Cross-chain AMM connecting EVM, Solana, TON, Tron, and BitcoinStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Liquidity varies materially by chain pair — verify before size
Quick facts
At a glance
FactAcrossSymbiosis
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).Symbiosis docs, "Symbiosis & Fees" (docs.symbiosis.finance/main-concepts/symbiosis-and-fees.md, fetched 30 September 2026): the user pays source-chain gas - "The user signs and submits this transaction on the source blockchain (where their assets are held) and covers the gas fee for this transaction." - and the gas that Symbiosis relayers spend on the S-chain and the destination chain is withheld from the swapped tokens as a stablecoin-equivalent estimate; the FAQ (docs.symbiosis.finance/faq.md) puts it as "relayers pay for the gas, which is deducted from users swaps". Octopool swap fees and slippage apply on top. No percentage fee is published on either page, so the percentage the previous note carried is not repeated.
Asset coverageEditorialCross-chain token transfers across supported bridge routesCross-chain AMM swaps across heterogeneous ecosystems
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 Symbiosis's 3/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Speed — 10/10
Tradeoff
Less specialist than some bridge-native power-user options
Symbiosis
41#16 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Symbiosis if route coverage matters most — it scores 9/10 to Across's 7/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 9/10
Tradeoff
Liquidity varies materially by chain pair — verify before size
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
AcrossLeads
Choose Across if trust matters most
Trust: 7/10 against 3/10 for Symbiosis (weight 26)
Route clarity: 9/10 against 3/10 for Symbiosis (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 10/10 against 6/10 for Symbiosis (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
Symbiosis
Choose Symbiosis if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 9/10 against 7/10 for Across (weight 28)
SymbiosisScore 41Cross-chain AMM connecting EVM, Solana, TON, Tron, and BitcoinStrength: Route coverage — 9/10Watch-out: Liquidity varies materially by chain pair — verify before size
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 2 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Symbiosis leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Symbiosis9/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 6 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Across leads
Across9/10 out of 10
Symbiosis3/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 4 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Across leads
Across10/10 out of 10
Symbiosis6/10 out of 10
Trust
by 4 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Across leads
Across7/10 out of 10
Symbiosis3/10 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
Across20/20Symbiosis14/20
Across leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Across19.5/30Symbiosis12.8/30
Across leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Across2.7/10Symbiosis2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Across6.4/8Symbiosis3.2/8
Across leads
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Across6.9/18Symbiosis6.9/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Across unless the term Symbiosis leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Symbiosis if route coverage matters most — it scores 9/10 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, Symbiosis 3/10)
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 Symbiosis, led by trust, route clarity, and transfer speed. Published scores, out of 100: Across 79 (rank 2 of 18 bridges), Symbiosis 41 (rank 16 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
