Bridge Fee Calculator: Compare Cross-Chain Bridge Costs

What Is a Crypto Bridge?

A crypto bridge is a protocol that transfers assets between two separate blockchains. Blockchains are isolated by design: Ethereum cannot read Arbitrum's state, and Solana has no awareness of Polygon. Bridges solve this by creating a mechanism for tokens to move across these boundaries, either by locking the original asset and minting a wrapped version on the destination chain, or by coordinating liquidity pools on both sides so users receive native tokens directly.

Bridges have become essential infrastructure as the crypto ecosystem has fragmented across dozens of Layer 1 and Layer 2 networks. Users need to move USDC from Ethereum to Arbitrum for cheaper DeFi access, shift ETH to Base for a new application, or consolidate assets from multiple L2s back to mainnet. Without bridges, each chain would be an isolated economy with no way to share liquidity or users.

The tradeoff is that bridges introduce risk and cost. Every bridge relies on some trust assumption: a set of validators, a liquidity provider, or an optimistic challenge window. Bridge fees vary widely depending on the protocol, the route, and the amount being transferred. Understanding how each bridge works is key to choosing the cheapest, fastest, and most secure option for your specific transfer.

How Bridge Fees Work

Bridge fees come from several sources, and different bridges combine them in different ways. The most common fee components are:

• Protocol fees: a percentage of the transfer amount charged by the bridge itself. This ranges from 0.01% on low-cost bridges like Orbiter to 0.25% on higher-end protocols. Some bridges charge zero protocol fees and monetize through other means.
• Gas fees: every bridge transaction requires on-chain transactions on both the source and destination chains. You pay gas on the source chain to initiate the transfer, and the bridge (or a relayer) pays gas on the destination chain to complete it. Destination gas is usually embedded in the bridge fee.
• Liquidity premiums: bridges that use liquidity pools (like Stargate and Across) pay liquidity providers a fee for the capital they lock up. This is built into the protocol fee. When liquidity is thin on a particular route, fees increase to attract more capital.
• Slippage: for large transfers through pool-based bridges, the exchange rate may shift against you. Bridging $100,000 through a pool with $1 million in liquidity will move the price, costing you more than the quoted percentage fee.

Native rollup bridges (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) are the exception. They charge no protocol fee at all: you only pay gas on the source chain. The tradeoff is speed. Depositing from Ethereum to an L2 takes about 10-15 minutes, but withdrawing from an L2 back to Ethereum requires a 7-day challenge period for optimistic rollups. This delay exists for security: it gives validators time to challenge fraudulent state transitions.

Bridge Comparison

The following table summarizes the major bridges available today, with their typical fees, speed, security model, supported chains, and ideal use cases. Fee ranges reflect normal conditions and may vary during congestion or low liquidity periods.

Fees listed above are protocol fees only. Actual costs include source chain gas, which can add $0.01-$20 depending on the chain. On Ethereum mainnet, gas alone may exceed the bridge protocol fee for smaller transfers. On L2s, gas is usually negligible.

Security Models

The biggest differentiator between bridges is not fees or speed: it is the security model. Each bridge trusts a different mechanism to verify that cross-chain messages are legitimate, and these mechanisms carry different risk profiles.

Liquidity-Based Bridges

Bridges like Stargate and Hop use liquidity pools on each chain. When you bridge USDC from Ethereum to Arbitrum, you deposit USDC into a pool on Ethereum, and the bridge releases USDC from a pool on Arbitrum. There is no wrapping or minting: you receive native tokens on the destination. The security risk is in the pool mechanics: if pools become imbalanced or drained, users may not be able to withdraw. Pool-based bridges are generally safer than lock-and-mint bridges because they avoid creating synthetic wrapped assets, but they are limited by available liquidity.

Lock-and-Mint Bridges

Wormhole and other messaging bridges use a lock-and-mint model. Your tokens are locked in a smart contract on the source chain, and a wrapped version is minted on the destination chain. This works for any token and any chain pair, making these bridges the most versatile. The risk is that the locked tokens are a single point of failure: if the bridge's smart contract is exploited, the locked tokens can be stolen, and the wrapped tokens on the destination become worthless.

Optimistic Verification

Across Protocol uses an optimistic model inspired by optimistic rollups. A relayer fills your order on the destination chain immediately, and the system assumes the transfer is valid unless someone challenges it within a dispute window. This makes Across one of the fastest bridges (1-3 minutes), but it requires a functioning dispute mechanism to prevent fraud. If the dispute system fails, invalid transfers could be approved.

Native Rollup Bridges

The native bridges for Arbitrum, Optimism, and Base inherit the full security of Ethereum itself. Deposits are verified by the L2's sequencer and the Ethereum consensus. Withdrawals go through a 7-day challenge window where anyone can submit a fraud proof if the state transition is invalid. This is the most secure bridging mechanism available, but the 7-day withdrawal delay makes it impractical for most users. Most people use third-party bridges for speed and only use native bridges for large, non-time-sensitive transfers.

When to Use Each Bridge

The right bridge depends on your priorities: cost, speed, security, or some combination of all three.

• For large transfers ($10,000+): use Stargate or the native rollup bridge. Stargate's flat 0.06% fee scales well for large amounts, and its deep liquidity pools handle big transfers with minimal slippage. If you can wait 7 days, the native bridge is the most secure and cheapest option (gas only).
• For speed (under 3 minutes): use Across Protocol or Orbiter Finance. Across fills orders in 1-3 minutes with competitive fees. Orbiter is even faster (under 1 minute) and charges the lowest percentage fees of any third-party bridge, though it works best for smaller amounts.
• For small transfers (under $500): use Orbiter Finance. Its 0.01-0.03% fee means you pay virtually nothing on small amounts, and transfers complete in under a minute. For very small amounts, the source chain gas fee may actually exceed the bridge protocol fee.
• For maximum security: use the native rollup bridge. The 7-day withdrawal delay is the price of Ethereum-level security. For deposits (Ethereum to L2), the native bridge is both free and fast (10-15 minutes), making it the obvious choice when moving assets to an L2.
• For multi-chain transfers beyond EVM: use Wormhole. It supports 20+ chains including Solana, Sui, Aptos, and Cosmos chains. Fees are competitive, and the Guardian network provides reasonable security for cross-ecosystem transfers.
• For Ethereum L2-to-L2 transfers: use Across or Hop. Both specialize in the Ethereum L2 ecosystem and offer the best rates for routes like Arbitrum to Base or Optimism to Polygon. Across is faster; Hop supports more token types.

Risks of Bridging

Bridges are among the most attacked pieces of crypto infrastructure. The total value lost to bridge exploits exceeds $2 billion, with several high-profile incidents shaping how the industry thinks about cross-chain security.

The Wormhole exploit in February 2022 resulted in $320 million stolen when an attacker found a vulnerability in Wormhole's signature verification on Solana. The attacker was able to mint 120,000 wETH on Solana without depositing corresponding ETH on Ethereum. Jump Crypto (Wormhole's backer) replenished the funds, but the exploit demonstrated the risk of lock-and-mint bridges: a single smart contract bug can drain all locked assets.

The Ronin Bridge hack in March 2022 was even larger at $600 million. Attackers compromised 5 of 9 validator keys on the Ronin sidechain (used by Axie Infinity), allowing them to approve fraudulent withdrawals. This highlighted the risk of multisig-based bridges with too few validators: compromising a majority of signers gives full control over locked funds.

Beyond exploits, everyday bridging risks include:

• Stuck transactions: if a bridge's relayer goes offline or the destination chain experiences congestion, your transfer can be delayed for hours or days. Funds are usually recoverable, but the experience is stressful and inconvenient.
• Slippage on large transfers: pool-based bridges can experience significant slippage when transferring amounts that represent a large portion of the pool's liquidity. Always check the quoted output before confirming a bridge transaction.
• Wrapped token risk: if you receive a wrapped token (like wETH or bridge-specific USDC) instead of a native token, you depend on the bridge remaining solvent and operational. If the bridge is compromised, wrapped tokens can lose their peg.
• Smart contract risk: every bridge interaction involves smart contract calls. Approving a bridge contract gives it permission to move your tokens. Malicious or compromised contracts can drain approved tokens. Revoke unused approvals after bridging.

For users who want to avoid bridging risk entirely, alternatives exist. Centralized exchanges allow you to deposit on one chain and withdraw on another (effectively acting as a bridge) with the exchange bearing the cross-chain risk. Spark eliminates the need for bridging within the Bitcoin ecosystem altogether: USDB and Bitcoin transfers on Spark are instant, free, and settled natively without crossing chain boundaries.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the cheapest crypto bridge?

Orbiter Finance is typically the cheapest third-party bridge, charging 0.01-0.03% in protocol fees. For Ethereum L2 deposits specifically, the native rollup bridges (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) are free: you only pay source chain gas. The cheapest option overall depends on the route, amount, and whether you can wait for the native bridge's 7-day withdrawal period.

How long does it take to bridge crypto?

Bridge times range from 30 seconds to 7 days depending on the bridge and direction. Orbiter Finance is the fastest at 30 seconds to 1 minute. Across Protocol takes 1-3 minutes. Stargate takes 1-5 minutes. Native rollup bridges complete deposits in 10-15 minutes but require 7 days for withdrawals from L2 back to Ethereum mainnet.

Are crypto bridges safe?

Bridges carry inherent risk because they require trust assumptions beyond the base blockchain's security. Over $2 billion has been lost to bridge exploits historically. Native rollup bridges are the safest because they inherit Ethereum's security model. Third-party bridges vary: reputable bridges like Stargate, Across, and Wormhole have undergone extensive audits, but no bridge is completely risk-free. For maximum safety, use native bridges for large transfers and revoke token approvals after bridging.

What is the difference between a native bridge and a third-party bridge?

Native bridges are built into the rollup protocol itself (Arbitrum Bridge, Optimism Gateway, Base Bridge). They inherit the rollup's full security model and charge no protocol fees. Third-party bridges (Stargate, Across, Hop, Orbiter) are independent protocols that offer faster transfers but introduce their own trust assumptions and fees. Native bridges are more secure but slower for withdrawals; third-party bridges are faster but carry additional smart contract risk.

Why do bridge withdrawals take 7 days?

The 7-day withdrawal period on optimistic rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) is a security feature. When you withdraw from an L2 to Ethereum, the system publishes the state transition and waits 7 days for anyone to submit a fraud proof if the transition is invalid. This challenge window ensures that fraudulent withdrawals can be caught and reversed. Third-party bridges bypass this delay by fronting the liquidity and taking on the 7-day risk themselves, which is why they charge fees.

Can I bridge USDC between chains?

Yes, USDC can be bridged between most major chains. Circle (USDC's issuer) also offers Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CCTP), which burns USDC on the source chain and mints native USDC on the destination chain, eliminating wrapped token risk. CCTP is integrated into several bridges including Across. For chains that do not support CCTP, traditional bridge protocols lock USDC on the source and release it from liquidity pools on the destination.

What happens if a bridge transaction fails?

If a bridge transaction fails, your funds are typically still safe. On most bridges, a failed transfer means the source chain transaction did not complete, so your tokens remain in your wallet. If the source transaction succeeded but the destination transaction failed (rare), bridges usually have a recovery mechanism where you can claim your funds back on the source chain. Check the bridge's transaction status page and support documentation if a transfer appears stuck for more than an hour.

How do I avoid bridge fees entirely?

There are several ways to avoid bridge fees. First, withdraw from centralized exchanges directly on the chain you need: this uses the exchange as a free bridge (though exchange withdrawal fees apply). Second, use native rollup bridges for Ethereum to L2 deposits, which are free and complete in about 15 minutes. Third, use Spark for transfers within the Bitcoin ecosystem: USDB and BTC transfers are instant and free with no bridging required. For L2 to Ethereum withdrawals, there is no way to avoid fees without accepting the 7-day native bridge delay.

This tool is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice. Fee estimates are based on typical network conditions as of early 2026 and may vary significantly during periods of high congestion or low liquidity. Bridge security models are simplified summaries: always review the bridge's documentation and audit reports before transferring large amounts. Past bridge exploits do not predict future vulnerabilities.