Hop vs Across: L2 Bridge Comparison 2026
Hop Protocol and Across are both specialized in Ethereum L2 bridging. This comparison examines their different approaches to fast, efficient layer 2 transfers.
L2 Focus
Both bridges specialize in the Ethereum L2 ecosystem:
- Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon
- Fast withdrawals from rollups
- Avoiding 7-day optimistic rollup delays
Speed Comparison
Hop Speed
- Minutes for most transfers
- Bonder network provides liquidity
- AMM-based pricing
- Reliable timing
Across Speed
- Seconds to minutes
- Relayer competition
- Intent-based model
- Often faster
Across typically provides faster transfers through its intent model.
Fee Structure
Hop Fees
- AMM fees (slippage)
- Bonder fees
- Destination gas
- Can vary with liquidity
Across Fees
- Relayer fees (market-driven)
- LP fees
- Destination gas
- Often more competitive
Liquidity Models
Hop Model
- AMMs on each chain
- Bonders provide fast liquidity
- hTokens as intermediary
- Established system
Across Model
- Intent-based fulfillment
- Relayers front capital
- Direct token transfers
- More capital efficient
Conclusion
Across wins for speed and competitive fees through its modern intent-based architecture. Hop remains a reliable, battle-tested option with strong community support.For most L2 transfers, Across provides the better experience. Hop is a solid fallback.
Optimize L2 bridging with Fensory.