Compare cross-chain bridge fees, speeds, and supported chains. Find the cheapest route for your transfer.
Nominal fee alone doesn't tell the whole story: bridges have accounted for roughly 40% of all Web3 exploit losses since 2022 ($2B+), so a "cheap" bridge with a thinner security track record can end up costing far more in expected risk than a slightly pricier, well-audited one. Toggle "Rank By" below to see both numbers side by side.
| Bridge | Model | Liquidity | Canonical | Audit | Risk Tier* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stargate | Liquidity pools | $200M+ | Yes (USDC/USDT) | ✅ Multiple | Tier 1 · Low |
| Across | Optimistic | $100M+ | Yes (USDC) | ✅ Multiple | Tier 1 · Low |
| Hop Protocol | hToken + AMM | $80M+ | No | ✅ Multiple | Tier 2 · Low-Med |
| Orbiter Finance | Maker/Taker | $30M+ | No | ✅ 1 | Tier 4 · Med-High |
| deBridge | Oracle + Liquidity | $50M+ | Yes | ✅ Multiple | Tier 3 · Medium |
| Synapse | Liquidity pools | $60M+ | No | ✅ Multiple | Tier 3 · Medium |
* Illustrative risk tier — see methodology below. Not an audited actuarial rating.
Bridges have been the single biggest source of Web3 exploit losses since 2022 — roughly 40% of the $2B+ total — and it's not a historical problem: Kelp DAO's LayerZero-adapter exploit in April 2026 alone lost $280–293M. A bridge's nominal fee says nothing about that risk, so this calculator adds two extra cost components:
Limitations: the risk tiers above are illustrative, relative estimates for comparing bridges against each other — they are not audited actuarial data, insurance pricing, or a guarantee of safety. Bridge security changes over time (new audits, new exploits, TVL shifts). Before moving a large amount, check the bridge's current audit reports, incident history and bug-bounty status yourself rather than relying solely on this tool.