Stargate vs zkSync Bridge Stargate leads by 1 point.
Stargate scores 1 point above zkSync Bridge, led by route coverage. Stargate ranks #12 and zkSync Bridge #13 of 18 published bridges. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Stargate51
vs
zkSync Bridge50
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #12 and #13 of 18
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+0.8
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5150+1.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge defaultzkSync BridgeScore 50Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ zkSync EraStrength: Trust — 8/10Watch-out: Smaller dapp ecosystem than the largest L2s
Quick facts
At a glance
FactStargatezkSync 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.ZKsync docs, "Bridging assets" (docs.zksync.io/zksync-protocol/rollup/bridging-assets, fetched 30 September 2026): no bridge fee is stated on that page; withdrawals carry a time cost - "To provide additional security, withdrawals in ZKsync Chains are delayed for 3 hours" - and the finality page (docs.zksync.io/zksync-protocol/rollup/finality) adds that proof generation "typically takes about an hour". The ZKsync Bridge front end (portal.zksync.io/bridge, titled "ZKsync Bridge | Transfer funds between ZKsync and Ethereum") renders client-side, so no live quote was read.
Asset coverageEditorialBroader route and liquidity coverage across supported token and chain pairsETH and registered ERC-20s
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Stargate
51#12 of 18
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Stargate if route coverage matters most — it scores 8/10 to zkSync Bridge's 1/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Route coverage — 8/10
Tradeoff
Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
zkSync Bridge
50#13 of 18
Pick it when
Pick zkSync Bridge if trust matters most — it scores 8/10 to Stargate's 4/10 there (weight 26).
Strength
Trust — 8/10
Tradeoff
Smaller dapp ecosystem than the largest L2s
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
StargateLeads
Choose Stargate if route coverage matters most
Route coverage: 8/10 against 1/10 for zkSync Bridge (weight 28)
StargateScore 51Omnichain liquidity bridge for broader route coverageStrength: Route coverage — 8/10Watch-out: Less purely mainstream than a simpler route-led bridge default
zkSync Bridge
Choose zkSync Bridge if trust matters most
Trust: 8/10 against 4/10 for Stargate (weight 26)
Route clarity: 6/10 against 3/10 for Stargate (weight 24)
Transfer speed: 5/10 against 4/10 for Stargate (weight 22)
zkSync BridgeScore 50Native canonical bridge for Ethereum ↔ zkSync EraStrength: Trust — 8/10Watch-out: Smaller dapp ecosystem than the largest L2s
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 7 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Stargate leads
Stargate8/10 out of 10
zkSync Bridge1/10 out of 10
Route clarity
by 3 of 10weight 5.8 of 86zkSync Bridge leads
Stargate3/10 out of 10
zkSync Bridge6/10 out of 10
Transfer speed
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86zkSync Bridge leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
zkSync Bridge5/10 out of 10
Trust
by 4 of 10weight 6.2 of 86zkSync Bridge leads
Stargate4/10 out of 10
zkSync Bridge8/10 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
Stargate20/20zkSync Bridge14/20
Stargate leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Stargate11.7/30zkSync Bridge11.8/30
zkSync Bridge leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Stargate2.7/10zkSync Bridge2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86
Stargate3.2/8zkSync Bridge3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Stargate6.9/18zkSync Bridge12.5/18
zkSync Bridge leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Stargate unless the term zkSync Bridge leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick zkSync Bridge if trust matters most — it scores 8/10 to Stargate's 4/10 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
Stargate scores 1 point above zkSync Bridge, led by route coverage. Published scores, out of 100: Stargate 51 (rank 12 of 18 bridges), zkSync Bridge 50 (rank 13 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
