All answers
AnswerBacked by Cheapest cross-chain bridge for USDC at $300 notional

Which bridge is cheapest to move USDC to Base?

Near Intents currently offers the lowest effective fee for a USDC bridge to Base at 0.057% bps all in (24h avg), measured live by OpenChainBench across Across, Stargate, LI.FI, Squid, Socket, Relay and Near Intents on a $300 USDC probe.

Bridge comparison articles publish rack rate fee schedules and stop there. The rack rate is one number in a bill that also includes destination gas, LP fees passed through as slippage, and the effective execution price the router actually delivers. On a $300 USDC bridge to Base, two providers quoting the same 5 bps headline can deliver very different real fees once the router walks the pool. This page answers the specific question retail and small-treasury movers actually search for: at $300 USDC notional, which bridge to Base is cheapest today. OpenChainBench queries the same USDC to Base intent against every major router every 5 minutes, computes the all-in effective fee including destination gas, and publishes the ranked leaderboard live.

Live leaderboard, top 5

  1. Near Intents logo

    Near Intents

    #1 · Effective fee

    0.057%p99 0.058%
  2. Mobula logo

    Mobula

    #2 · Effective fee

    0.12%p99 0.13%
  3. Across logo

    Across

    #3 · Effective fee

    0.12%p99 0.13%
  4. Relay logo

    Relay

    #4 · Effective fee

    0.15%p99 0.18%
  5. LI.FI logo

    LI.FI

    #5 · Effective fee

    0.37%p99 0.76%

Full live data: /benchmarks/bridge-fee, refreshed every minute.

Methodology and data sources

Every 5 minutes the harness sends the same intent (source: Ethereum mainnet USDC, destination: Base USDC, amount: $300 notional, receiver: probe wallet) to each router's quote API in parallel. Effective fee is computed as `(source_input_usd - destination_output_usd - destination_gas_usd) / source_input_usd` in basis points, so slippage, LP fees and gas are all inside the same number. Providers that fail to return a quote (5xx, rate limit, timeout) leave the previous gauge in place and increment a fetch_errors_total counter. The leaderboard ranks by 24h average of bridge_effective_fee_bps for the USDC to Base pair. The $300 size is the small ticket regime; sibling benches probe higher notional to expose where routers slip on size.

What this number does not tell you

  • ·Quote fee only. This measures router-quoted effective fee, not settlement. Any router that quotes tighter than it settles would show a fast p50 with degraded real-world execution; the sibling bridge-quote-latency bench flags routers where quote-to-settle drift is measurable.
  • ·One size, one route. The $300 USDC to Base pair is the highest-search-volume small-ticket bridge query. At $50k notional the leaderboard re-orders because the spread and LP fee components dominate. Producers moving treasury size should read the per-size breakdown on the bench page.
  • ·Destination gas at quote time. Destination gas is included in the effective fee at the quoted receiver payout, not at a delayed execution instant. A destination gas spike between quote and settle would degrade the actual fee below what this leaderboard reports.
  • ·No canonical CCTP fast path. The USDC canonical bridge via Circle CCTP has different guarantees and speeds than the market-maker routers ranked here. The leaderboard measures the market-maker path (Across, LI.FI, Stargate, Squid, Socket, Relay, Near Intents) because it is the head-to-head every comparison article ranks.

Frequently asked questions

Which bridge is cheapest for a $300 USDC transfer to Base?
Near Intents leads the leaderboard at 0.057% bps effective fee (24h avg) measured live on the same USDC to Base $300 probe. The full ranking including Across, Stargate, LI.FI, Squid, Socket, Relay and Near Intents re-sorts every 5 minutes against fresh Prometheus samples.
Why $300, and does the winner change at $10k or $100k?
$300 is the small-ticket regime that dominates retail search. At $10k the leaderboard shifts because LP-based routers (Stargate) start to lose ground to intent-based routers (Across, Near Intents) whose quotes are less size-dependent. At $100k the spread widens further and the choice becomes size-specific; the per-size tab on the bench page shows the leader at each notional.
Is Circle CCTP not on this ranking?
CCTP is Circle's canonical burn-and-mint path for USDC. It has different guarantees, speeds and a fixed protocol path, so it is not directly comparable to market-maker routers that price a swap through a pool. The bench measures the market-maker rankings because that is the choice retail actually makes; canonical CCTP is a separate decision users make once they know their maximum acceptable latency.
How is Across usually so cheap on this route?
Across runs an intent-based settlement model where relayers compete to fill from destination inventory. That model compresses the spread component to near zero on high-liquidity pairs like USDC Ethereum to Base. On less-liquid destinations Across loses its edge; that per-destination effect is why the leaderboard re-ranks by pair rather than emitting a single global cheapest bridge.
Is Stargate outdated for Base?
Stargate remains competitive on high-throughput pairs where its LP depth matters more than intent competition. On USDC to Base the pair-specific LP depth in 2026 has been narrower than intent-based competitors, which is why the leaderboard usually shows an intent router on top. Stargate wins on pairs where LP depth is the constraint.
How often is the leaderboard refreshed?
Every 5 minutes. The harness probes every router's quote API at that cadence, publishes bridge_effective_fee_bps to Prometheus, and the page reads a 24h rolling average. Because the recording rules re-aggregate every 30 seconds the on-screen ranking re-orders within a minute of any router changing quote behavior.

Related questions

Same data as /benchmarks/bridge-fee, refreshed every minute. Open methodology, open source.