Stargate vs Arbitrum Bridge Arbitrum Bridge leads by 4 points.
Arbitrum Bridge scores 4 points above Stargate, led by trust and route clarity. Stargate ranks #12 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.
Stargate51
vs
ARArbitrum Bridge55
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #12 and #8 of 18
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5551+4.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Arbitrum Bridge's lead rests on lighter criteria: Stargate is ahead on route coverage, which carries more weight (28) than any criterion Arbitrum Bridge leads on (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)StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
Quick facts
At a glance
FactStargateArbitrum Bridge
PricingSnapshotStargate user docs, "Fees" (stargateprotocol.gitbook.io/stargate/v2-user-docs/whats-new-in-stargate-v2/fees.md, fetched 30 September 2026): "In V1, Stargate charged a flat 6 bps fee for all transactions via V1 pools. In V2, with the help of the AI Planning Module (AIPM) Stargate V2 enables dynamic fees." The fee "refers to the difference between the input by the user on the source chain and the received amount on the destination chain", and on a depleted pathway "a rebate is offered to help rebalance the liquidity in the system." Gas is paid separately in the source-chain native token for "LayerZero's execution fee" and the "Fee to the DVN for verifying the message between LayerZero endpoints". The V2 page publishes no rate, so the flat figure the previous note carried is the V1 rate, not a V2 price. Stargate's own quote API (stargate.finance/api/v1) answered HTTP 410 and points to LayerZero's Value Transfer API.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 coverageEditorialBroader route and liquidity coverage across supported token and chain pairsETH and any ERC-20 with a registered token bridge contract
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Stargate
51#12 of 18
Pick it when
Pick Stargate if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Arbitrum Bridge's 2/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
AR
Arbitrum Bridge
55#8 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Arbitrum Bridge if trust matters most — it scores 10/10 to Stargate's 4/10 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?
Stargate
Choose Stargate if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 8/10 against 2/10 for Arbitrum Bridge (weight 28)
Transfer speed: 4/10 against 2/10 for Arbitrum Bridge (weight 22)
StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
ARArbitrum BridgeLeads
Choose Arbitrum Bridge if trust matters most
Trust: 10/10 against 4/10 for Stargate (weight 26)
Route clarity: 9/10 against 3/10 for Stargate (weight 24)
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 6 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Stargate leads
Stargate8/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge2/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 6 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Arbitrum Bridge leads
Stargate3/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge9/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Stargate leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
Arbitrum Bridge2/10 out of 10
Trust
by 6 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Arbitrum Bridge leads
Stargate4/10 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
Stargate20/20Arbitrum Bridge14/20
Stargate leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Stargate11.7/30Arbitrum Bridge13.8/30
Arbitrum Bridge leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Stargate2.7/10Arbitrum Bridge2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Stargate3.2/8Arbitrum Bridge3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Stargate6.9/18Arbitrum Bridge12.5/18
Arbitrum Bridge leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Arbitrum Bridge unless the term Stargate leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Stargate if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to Arbitrum Bridge's 2/10 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.
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
Arbitrum Bridge scores 4 points above Stargate, led by trust and route clarity. Published scores, out of 100: Stargate 51 (rank 12 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
