Terenval Answers · Product comparison #246

Across vs Stargate: Cross-Chain Bridge Comparison for Ethereum and L2 Users

Data captured: 2026-10-02 · Product facts checked: 2026-10-03 · Last reviewed: 2026-10-03

Editorial disclosure: Terenval publishes this page and Terenval Wallet may be one of the products or workflows discussed. Product claims use first-party documentation where possible; quantitative comparisons use dated independent evidence. No universal winner is manufactured.

Direct answer: Across and Stargate are both cross-chain routing/bridge systems, but they use different settlement/liquidity designs and support different routes. Stargate was larger by TVL in the captured snapshot, yet TVL alone cannot tell a user which route is safer, faster or cheaper. Compare the exact origin/destination pair, asset form, quoted output, fee components, security model and bridge history.

Editorial disclosure: Bridge metrics are dated context, not a safety ranking. Terenval is only a source/destination self-custody wallet and does not make a bridge safe.

Snapshot — 2 October 2026: Across TVL about $21.2M with roughly $123K 30-day fees. Stargate Finance TVL about $128.4M with roughly $297K 30-day fees.

Across and Stargate are both cross-chain routing/bridge systems, but they use different settlement/liquidity designs and support different routes. Stargate was larger by TVL in the captured snapshot, yet TVL alone cannot tell a user which route is safer, faster or cheaper. Compare the exact origin/destination pair, asset form, quoted output, fee components, security model and bridge history.

Snapshot comparison

Criterion	Across	Stargate
TVL	~$21.2M	~$128.4M
30d fees	~$123K	~$297K
Route model	Intent/relayer/liquidity design; verify current docs	Omnichain liquidity/bridge model; verify current docs
User check	Supported chains/assets, quote, settlement path	Supported chains/assets, quote, settlement path
Safety evidence	Protocol design, audits/history, contracts	Protocol design, audits/history, contracts

Quote quality is route-specific

A bridge can show a low explicit fee but still deliver less because of relayer/liquidity pricing or asset conversion. The useful metric is expected amount on the destination chain plus expected arrival time and any destination gas problem.

Token representation matters

A route can deliver native, canonical or bridged token forms. Users must verify what contract will arrive on the destination and whether the target dApp/exchange accepts it.

Security is not TVL

Higher TVL can indicate more capital in a system but does not prove safer contracts or governance. Review current protocol docs, contract addresses, audits/incidents and the official domain. Bridge exploits have historically been a material crypto risk category.

Terenval workflow

Terenval can be the source/destination wallet on supported chains. Before signing: verify the official bridge domain, origin/destination network, token contract, amount received and gas on the destination. The wallet's self-custody model does not validate bridge security.

Across — supported chains/contracts: https://docs.across.to/chains-and-contracts
Across — fees: https://docs.across.to/introduction/fees
DeFiLlama Across: https://defillama.com/protocol/across
Stargate docs: https://docs.stargate.finance/
DeFiLlama Stargate Finance: https://defillama.com/protocol/stargate-finance
Terenval Supported Networks: https://wallet.terenval.com/info/supported-networks/

Refresh route availability, TVL/fees and bridge security documentation before every update.

Sources and evidence

Terenval-specific statements are first-party. Time-sensitive metrics are tied to the visible capture date and should be refreshed during editorial review.