SKIP TO CONTENT
Beta·March 2026·Join Early Access→
Cross Chain BridgesUpdated Feb 13, 2026

Wormhole vs Across

Compare Wormhole vs Across Protocol bridges. Analyze multi-chain messaging vs intent-based bridging, security, and user experience.

View Wormhole →View Across →

Feature Comparison

FeatureWormholeAcross
Transfer Speed
15-30 min
Seconds-minutesWinner
Chain Coverage
20+ chainsWinner
10+ EVM
Non-EVM Support
YesWinner
No
Fee Efficiency
Standard
Market-optimizedWinner
Architecture
Guardian messaging
Intent-basedTie
Security Model
Multi-sig guardians
Optimistic oracleTie
L2 Focus
General
OptimizedWinner
General Messaging
YesWinner
Token-focused
User Experience
Standard
ExcellentWinner
Security Record
Past incident
CleanWinner

Wormhole vs Across: Cross-Chain Bridge Comparison 2026

Wormhole and Across Protocol represent different generations of bridging technology. Wormhole offers broad multi-chain messaging while Across pioneered intent-based bridging for optimal UX.

Architectural Differences

Wormhole is a general-purpose cross-chain messaging protocol using a guardian network. It enables both token transfers and arbitrary message passing across 20+ chains. Across uses an intent-based architecture where relayers compete to fulfill user transfer requests. This model provides extremely fast finality and competitive pricing through market dynamics.

Speed Comparison

Wormhole Speed

  • Variable based on chain finality
  • Typically 15-30 minutes
  • Message relay adds latency
  • Dependent on guardian confirmation

Across Speed

  • Seconds to minutes for most transfers
  • Relayers front capital immediately
  • Near-instant user experience
  • Industry-leading speed

Across is significantly faster for token transfers due to its intent-based model.

Security Models

Wormhole Security

  • 19 guardian validators
  • 13/19 signature threshold
  • Decentralized but concentrated
  • Post-2022 security improvements

Across Security

  • UMA's optimistic oracle
  • Economic security through bonding
  • Dispute resolution mechanism
  • Clean security record

Chain Support

Wormhole Chains

  • 20+ chains
  • Strong non-EVM (Solana, Sui, Aptos)
  • Broadest coverage

Across Chains

  • 10+ EVM chains
  • L2 focused (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base)
  • EVM only

Fee Dynamics

Wormhole Fees

  • Fixed protocol fees
  • Gas on both chains
  • Predictable pricing

Across Fees

  • Market-driven (relayer competition)
  • Often cheapest option
  • Dynamic based on liquidity
  • LP fees + gas

Conclusion

Wormhole wins for multi-ecosystem support and general messaging capabilities. Across wins for EVM bridging with best-in-class speed and competitive fees through its intent-based model.

For quick L2-to-L2 transfers, Across is hard to beat. For Solana or broader ecosystem needs, use Wormhole.

Optimize your bridging with Fensory.

Risk Analysis

**Speed vs Security**: Across's speed comes from relayer fronting, adding economic rather than cryptographic guarantees. **Oracle Risk**: Across relies on UMA's optimistic oracle; disputes are rare but possible. **Liquidity Risk**: Across depends on relayer capital; low-liquidity routes may be slow. **Bridge Risk**: Both have inherent bridge attack surface risk. **Chain Risk**: Wormhole's broader coverage introduces more chain-specific risks.

Verdict

Winner: Across for EVM-to-EVM transfers with superior speed and UX. Wormhole wins for non-EVM chains and general messaging. For most L2 users, Across provides the best experience; Wormhole is essential for Solana ecosystem.

Track yields on Wormhole and Across in real-time.

Track live yields, compare protocols, and build your DeFi portfolio with Fensory.

GET EARLY ACCESSArrow right
← BACK TO COMPARISONS