Cross-Chain Bridge Comparison Guide: Top Crypto Bridges & Features That You Can Choose From

Moving crypto assets between different blockchains is pretty much a must these days, especially as the multi-chain world keeps getting bigger in 2025. With dozens of networks running on their own, you need solid cross-chain bridges just to shuffle tokens between places like Ethereum, Solana, and BNB Chain. But here’s the kicker—over $2.8 billion vanished in bridge hacks in 2025 alone. Picking the right bridge isn’t just about convenience; it’s about not losing your shirt to some exploit. You’ve gotta weigh security, fees, and what each bridge can actually do.

Bridges aren’t all built the same—security, supported networks, fees, and speed can be wildly different. Some, like Wormhole, hook into 30+ blockchains and charge next to nothing, while others focus on things like stablecoin swaps or intent-based transfers. You’ll see everything from old-school lock-and-mint bridges to aggregators and new tech that tries to hide all the complexity from users.

Let’s break down what sets top bridge protocols apart and dig into what you should actually care about. Knowing how these bridges tick and where they might trip up can help you move assets around with less stress and fewer nasty surprises.

Fundamentals of Cross-Chain Bridges

Cross-chain bridges are basically smart contract protocols that let you move assets between blockchains—finally solving that headache where DeFi apps can’t talk to each other. If you want to figure out which bridge actually fits your needs, you need to know the basics of how they work.

What Are Cross-Chain Bridges and Why They Matter

Cross-chain bridges are protocols that move digital assets and data between different blockchains. These tools connect blockchains that otherwise just don’t play nice together.

The main headache they solve? Interoperability. Big networks like Ethereum, BNB Chain, Solana, and Avalanche all run in their own lanes, with their own tokens and DeFi stuff.

If you didn’t have bridges, you’d need a different wallet and stash of tokens for every network. That’s a pain, and it splits up liquidity, making crypto markets less efficient overall.

Here’s what bridges really give you:

• Move your tokens between EVM and non-EVM chains

  
  

• Dodge high fees by jumping to cheaper networks

  
  

• Jump into DeFi apps wherever they are

  
  

• Spread your portfolio across different chains

  
  

Bridges handle billions in transfers every year. They let you swap assets across chains without having to deal with centralized exchanges and their slow withdrawal times.

Common Architectures: Lock-and-Mint vs. Liquidity Pools

Bridges mostly use two setups to move your tokens, and each has its own ups and downs.

Lock-and-Mint Architecture: This one locks your tokens on the original chain and spits out a wrapped version on the destination chain. When you send them back, it burns the wrapped tokens and unlocks the originals.

Bridges like Wormhole use this model. It keeps the total supply in check, but those wrapped tokens might trade at a slight discount compared to the real thing.

Liquidity Pool Architecture: Here, bridges stash a pool of native tokens on each chain. You swap your token for the native version sitting in the pool on the other side.

You get native tokens, not wrapped ones, but this system only works if there’s enough liquidity. Big transfers can cause slippage.

Hybrid models mix both: they’ll use pools when there’s enough liquidity, and fall back to lock-and-mint for big transfers or unsupported tokens.

Key Features to Evaluate in a Cross-Chain Bridge

Picking a bridge isn’t just about which one’s popular. You’ve got to look at some key stuff that actually makes a difference.

• Chain Compatibility: EVM chains—Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum—usually have more bridge options. Solana, Cosmos, and other non-EVM chains need specialized bridges, so your choices are thinner.

  
  

• Transaction Speed and Fees: Transfers can take anywhere from a couple of minutes to hours, depending on network traffic and how the bridge verifies stuff. Fees are all over the place—Ethereum bridges can be pricey, while others are dirt cheap.

  
  

• Security Model: Bridges secure themselves with validator networks, multi-sigs, or fancy cryptography. The ones that have survived multiple audits and hacks are generally safer.

  
  

• Supported Assets: Some bridges only handle a few token types. Others will bridge pretty much anything that meets their technical requirements.

  
  

• Liquidity and Slippage: Bridges with bigger liquidity pools give you better rates and less slippage, especially when you’re moving a lot of tokens at once.

Comparing Leading Cross-Chain Bridges

Portal (Wormhole) and Stargate are the two heavyweights in the cross-chain space, but they take different routes—literally and figuratively. Each has its own strengths when it comes to security, fees, and what they’re best at.

Portal (Wormhole) vs Stargate: Ecosystem and Chain Support

Portal (Wormhole) hooks into 30+ blockchains—Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Sui, BNB Chain, you name it. It uses a generic messaging system, so it connects both EVM and non-EVM chains.

Portal even bridges to Cosmos and Bitcoin through its validator network. You can move assets to Base, Linea, and new Layer-2s without much hassle.

Stargate Finance sticks mostly to EVM chains but covers a lot of them—over 40 networks. It’s built on LayerZero, so it connects Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, Arbitrum, and BNB Chain.

Stargate is all about deep liquidity pools on the major chains, not just covering as many networks as possible.

So, Wormhole covers more types of blockchains, while Stargate goes deeper within the EVM world.

Security, Fees, and Transaction Experience

Security works differently for each. Wormhole uses 19 validators (they call them Guardians) to check cross-chain messages via smart contracts. Stargate depends on LayerZero’s ultra-light nodes and oracles.

Wormhole got a nod from Uniswap’s Bridge Assessment Committee as the only cross-chain protocol they unconditionally approved. That’s a solid endorsement.

Fees look like this:

• Portal usually charges less than a penny per transfer

  
  

• Stargate slaps on a flat 0.06% fee

  
  

• Ethereum gas fees can tack on $5-50, depending on how busy things are

Speed depends on the network. Stargate usually finishes up instantly. Portal takes about 5-15 minutes, depending on how fast validators confirm stuff.

Both bridges work with MetaMask, so you don’t have to jump through extra hoops to use them.

Use Cases: DeFi, Yield Farming, and Asset Movement

DeFi applications tap into each bridge in their own way. Stargate lets AMM protocols and liquidity pools move native assets—think shifting USDC across chains, no need to mess with wrapped tokens.

Portal handles the more tangled DeFi strategies. It lets users move governance tokens, grab staking rewards, and chase yield farming opportunities between Ethereum and Solana. That’s handy if you’re juggling assets on multiple chains.

Yield farming gets a boost with both bridges. Stargate’s liquidity pools hand out staking rewards to folks who supply bridge liquidity. Portal opens the door to bigger yields on chains like Avalanche and Polygon, so users can hunt for better returns.

Asset movement depends on who’s using what. Institutions usually go with Portal for big transfers—they trust its security more. Retail traders, on the other hand, lean toward Stargate for quick DeFi moves and instant finality.

Decentralized exchanges don’t all plug in the same way. Some DEXes use Stargate for smooth token swaps, while others pick Wormhole for its wider chain coverage—especially if they want to support more unusual asset pairs.