At a glance
Across Protocol ↗ and Hop Protocol ↗ are two bridges optimized for moving assets between Ethereum and its rollups. They take fundamentally different approaches: Across uses an intent-based model with relayer competition, while Hop relies on bonders and AMM pools. In 2026, Across holds $200M TVL across 10 chains, including its role powering Uniswap and Coinbase Wallet bridge flows. Hop manages $40M TVL on 7 chains with a simpler hToken pool design. Choose Across if you need institutional-grade speed and broad L2 coverage; Hop if you prefer a lean, long-standing rollup-to-rollup bridge.
Key differences
Architecture. Across is intent-based: users express a desired outcome, relayers compete to fill it, and UMA’s optimistic oracle verifies execution. Hop uses bonders to front liquidity and AMM pools (hTokens) to facilitate transfers, settling on L1. Across’s design enables fast, capital-efficient L2-to-L2 transfers with low slippage; Hop’s pools can incur higher friction when bonder liquidity is thin.
TVL and chain reach. Across commands $200M TVL across 10 chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon, zkSync, Linea, Blast, Mode, Scroll). Hop holds $40M on 7 chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base, Linea, Nova). Across’s deeper liquidity and wider chain support make it more versatile.
Adoption. Across is embedded in Uniswap and Coinbase Wallet’s bridge interfaces, giving it outsized volume and trust. Hop lacks comparable protocol-level integrations, relying on its own frontend and community liquidity.
Launch and maturity. Hop launched in 2021; Across in 2022. Despite being newer, Across has captured significantly more value and mindshare.
Security and track record
Both protocols have clean incident records. Across was audited by OpenZeppelin, Mixbytes, and Code4rena ↗—a mix of Tier‑1 firms and community contests. Hop’s audits came from Code4rena, Mixbytes, and Solidified ↗. The shared auditor overlap (Mixbytes, Code4rena) suggests comparable baseline scrutiny. However, Across’s higher TVL and volume mean it has withstood more adversarial pressure, making it arguably the more battle-tested of the two.
Fees and costs
Exact fee schedules are not disclosed in our data—users should check across.to ↗ and hop.exchange ↗ for live quotes. Across’s relayer competition and lack of AMM pool friction typically result in lower slippage and fees, especially for large transfers. Hop’s AMM pools charge a small LP fee, and bonders may price in a spread; costs can rise when pool liquidity is unbalanced.
Which should you choose
Pick Across if: you need fast, low-slippage bridging across the widest array of L2s, value deep liquidity ($200M), and want the bridge that powers Uniswap and Coinbase Wallet. It’s the institutional-grade choice.
Pick Hop if: you stick to a core set of rollups (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon), prefer a simpler hToken pool mechanism, and are comfortable with smaller, community-managed liquidity ($40M).
Verdict
Across Protocol wins on every major metric: TVL ($200M vs $40M), chain coverage (10 vs 7), integrations (Uniswap, Coinbase Wallet), and capital efficiency. Hop remains a functional, straightforward alternative for canonical-asset transfers on fewer chains, but Across is the superior bridge for most users in 2026.