The Best Cross-Chain Intents Protocols: Complete 2025 Guide

The blockchain ecosystem has grown significantly with the rise of Layer 2 solutions and alternative chains, creating a fragmented landscape where users struggle to move assets efficiently between networks. Cross-chain intents protocols have emerged as a solution to this complexity, changing how we approach interoperability by focusing on user outcomes rather than transaction paths.

Unlike traditional bridges that require users to understand complex mechanics like locking, minting, and messaging, intents allow users to simply specify what they want to achieve. This paradigm shift has made cross-chain transactions faster, cheaper, and more secure while abstracting away technical complexity from end users.

Recent developments in 2025 have accelerated adoption significantly. The Ethereum Foundation launched the Open Intents Framework (OIF) in February 2025, a modular framework supported by over 30 teams, including major Layer 2s like Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, and zkSync. This standardization effort builds upon ERC-7683 and aims to unify intent-based execution across the entire Ethereum ecosystem.

In this comprehensive guide, we'll examine the best cross-chain intents protocols available in 2025, analyzing their features, advantages, and use cases to help you choose the right solution for your needs.

Cross-chain intents represent a significant advancement in blockchain interoperability where users express their desired outcomes rather than specifying execution paths. Instead of manually bridging assets, swapping tokens, and managing gas fees across multiple chains, users simply declare their intent, and specialized solvers compete to fulfill it efficiently.

An intent is a type of order where a user specifies an outcome instead of an execution path. Intents can be single-chain, or crosschain where the user's desired outcomes is on a different chain than input assets.

This approach offers several key advantages over traditional bridging methods:

Simplified User Experience: Users no longer need to understand the intricacies of different blockchain networks or manage multiple wallets and gas tokens.

Competitive Execution: Multiple solvers compete to provide the best execution path, leading to better pricing and faster settlement times.

MEV Protection: The intent-based architecture shields users from MEV attacks that are common in traditional bridging mechanisms.

Capital Efficiency: Solvers can use off-chain liquidity and advanced strategies to optimize execution without requiring large liquidity pools.

The intent settlement process involves several key participants working together to execute user requests efficiently. When a user submits an intent, it enters a competitive marketplace where solvers bid to fulfill the order.

In both systems, the user expresses their desired intent, independent fillers compete to answer the request, and the winning filler executes the action. User funds are escrowed in a settlement protocol, and are only released to the filler once the protocol has verified that the user intent was fulfilled.

The typical flow involves three main phases:

This architecture separates the urgency of user needs from the complexity of settlement, allowing for more robust verification mechanisms without strict time constraints.

Eco stands out as an innovative cross-chain intents protocol, specifically designed from the ground up for stablecoin transactions. Unlike general-purpose solutions, Eco focuses on a singular, opinionated use case that makes transaction costs negligible while providing the simplest possible user experience.

Eco introduces a focused approach to cross-chain stablecoin transactions through its specialized rollup architecture. The Eco Protocol empowers developers to offer the most intuitive onchain experience to users, providing a frictionless stablecoin experience that accelerates user onboarding and streamlines money movement across the crypto ecosystem.

The protocol operates on three core principles: enabling any onchain action to be a simple one-click stablesend, providing instant permissionless liquidity aggregation, and offering the cheapest possible transaction execution for stablecoin operations.

Pros:

Cons:

Eco's unique positioning as the "stablelayer" makes it the ideal choice for applications that primarily deal with stablecoin transactions, offering unmatched efficiency and user experience in this specific domain. Recent developments in March 2025 include the launch of the Eco Portal beta, which enables the cheapest stablecoin transfers across chains currently available, with support for Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon.

UniswapX represents Uniswap's evolution into intent-based trading, offering an auction-based protocol for finding optimal prices across AMMs and other liquidity sources. As part of the broader Uniswap ecosystem, it benefits from deep liquidity and widespread adoption.

Key Features:

UniswapX uses Dutch auctions where fillers bid competitively to execute trades, ensuring users get the best possible prices. UniswapX and Across both use comparable architectures to support capital-efficient cross-chain execution.

Pros:

Cons:

UniswapX is ideal for traders who want MEV protection and access to Uniswap's deep liquidity while benefiting from intent-based execution.

CoW Protocol (formerly CowSwap) pioneered batch auctions and MEV protection in DeFi, now extending its intent-based approach to cross-chain operations through CoW Hooks and advanced solver networks.

CoW Protocol uses batch auctions where multiple orders are settled together, enabling better price discovery and protection from MEV attacks. Solvers compete to find optimal execution paths while protecting users from sandwich attacks and other forms of extractable value.

Pros:

Cons:

CoW Protocol works best for traders who prioritize MEV protection and want access to sophisticated trading mechanisms with strong user protections.

Anoma takes a fundamentally different approach by building intents directly into its blockchain architecture as a base layer primitive, creating a sovereign proof-of-stake chain optimized for intent-centric applications.

Anoma builds Intents into its architecture as a base layer primitive for coordination. The protocol uses validity predicates and resource logic to enable complex multi-party, multi-chain coordination through its intent-centric design.

Pros:

Cons:

Anoma appeals to developers and users who want the most advanced intent capabilities and are willing to work with cutting-edge, experimental technology.

Essential is building an Ethereum-aligned Layer 2 specifically designed for secure and expressive intent-based execution, optimizing the entire stack for intent processing and settlement.

Essential develops an intent-optimized blockchain that provides enhanced security and expressiveness for intent-based applications. The protocol focuses on creating infrastructure specifically designed to handle complex intent execution efficiently.

Pros:

Cons:

Essential targets developers building next-generation intent-based applications who need maximum flexibility and security in their execution environment.

Biconomy combines intent-based architecture with account abstraction to provide seamless cross-chain experiences, eliminating the need for users to manage multiple wallets or gas tokens across different networks.

Biconomy's approach integrates smart account infrastructure with cross-chain intents, enabling users to interact with multiple chains through a single interface while abstracting away complex wallet management and gas fee handling.

Pros:

Cons:

Biconomy appeals to developers building user-friendly dApps that want to eliminate friction from cross-chain interactions through account abstraction.

1inch Fusion introduces an intent-based architecture to the established 1inch DEX aggregation platform, prioritizing optimal execution for users while safeguarding them against MEV attacks.

In 1inch Fusion, users set their target outcomes, and resolvers achieve these using the most effective strategies. With 1inch Fusion, users state their swap intents, and the protocol ensures optimal execution by resolvers.

Pros:

Cons:

1inch Fusion works best for users who prioritize MEV protection and want access to comprehensive DEX aggregation on individual chains.

Across Protocol is an intent-based approach to cross-chain bridging. With over $20 billion transferred and 14 million transactions completed, Across is reliable and efficient.

Crosschain intents are a crosschain limit order plus an action to execute. Intents replace explicit execution steps with user outcomes, allowing relayers to compete to provide the optimal execution path for the user.

Across operates through a three-layered architecture consisting of a request-for-quote mechanism, competitive relayer network, and settlement layer powered by UMA's Optimistic Oracle.

Pros:

Cons:

Across excels as a general-purpose bridging solution for users who need reliable, fast, and cost-effective asset transfers between major EVM chains.

deBridge serves as a comprehensive cross-chain protocol using decentralized validators to securely bridge assets without relying on locked liquidity pools. Its innovative zero-TVL approach eliminates common bridge security risks while maintaining ultra-low spreads and fast execution times.

deBridge is crypto's premier cross-chain protocol, using decentralized validators to securely bridge assets without relying on locked liquidity pools. Its innovative "intents" model facilitates instant cross-chain transfers, data messaging, NFTs, and governance actions, empowering builders and traders.

The protocol has processed over $9.96 billion in volume with a median transaction time of just 1.96 seconds, demonstrating its efficiency and reliability in the competitive bridge market.

Pros:

Cons:

deBridge excels for users and developers who need comprehensive cross-chain functionality with strong security guarantees and don't want to rely on traditional liquidity pool models.

Understanding the fundamental differences between intent-based and traditional bridge architectures helps explain why intents are becoming the dominant paradigm for cross-chain interactions.

Traditional Bridges:

Intent-Based Protocols:

Intent-based bridge protocols can be labeled more precisely as intent settlement protocols that are responsible for ensuring that solvers are repaid for fulfilling user intents correctly.

This architectural difference explains why intent-based protocols are rapidly gaining adoption and why traditional bridges are being replaced or upgraded to support intent-based execution.

The development of ERC-7683 by Uniswap Labs and Across Protocol represents an important step toward standardizing cross-chain intents across the ecosystem. This standard provides a unified framework for expressing and executing intents across different protocols.

Building upon this foundation, the Ethereum Foundation launched the Open Intents Framework (OIF) in February 2025, representing a coordinated effort by over 30 ecosystem teams to create shared infrastructure for intent-based execution. The framework has gained support from leading Layer 2s including Arbitrum, Optimism, Scroll, Polygon, zkSync, Linea, Gnosis, and Starknet.

ERC-7683 standardizes how crosschain interactions are expressed as intents, enabling seamless connectivity between Ethereum mainnet, L2s, and sidechains.

The combined ERC-7683 and OIF standards offer several key advantages:

With over 70 projects supporting ERC-7683 and the backing of the Ethereum Foundation through OIF, these standards are quickly becoming the foundation for the next generation of cross-chain applications.

Selecting the optimal cross-chain intents protocol depends on your specific use case, technical requirements, and user experience priorities. Here's a framework for making the right choice:

The cross-chain intents landscape continues to evolve rapidly, with several trends shaping the future of interoperability:

There's also a fundamental design divide in how these systems approach Intents. Some projects, like Eco and Essential, baking Intents straight into their architecture as core building blocks. Others, like UniswapX and CoW Protocol, layer Intents onto existing transactional systems, enhancing rather than replacing the old model. There are several key projects pioneering the Intents landscape, including Eco.

UniswapX: Introduces offchain auctions and relayers that source liquidity across chains, with cross-chain bridging integration launched in October 2024. CoW Protocol: Enables MEV-resistant swaps through batch auctions and solver networks.

Anoma: Builds Intents into its architecture as a base layer primitive for coordination. Essential: An Ethereum-aligned L2 designed for secure and expressive Intents-based execution.

Biconomy: Combines account abstraction with intent-based cross-chain functionality.

ERC-7521: Proposed by developers from Anoma, ERC-7521 is an expressive Intents format designed for smart contract wallets. It introduces programmable constraints—known as validity predicates—that define the conditions under which an Intent is valid.

What's the difference between cross-chain intents and traditional bridges?

Cross-chain intents allow users to specify desired outcomes rather than execution paths, while traditional bridges require users to understand complex mechanics like locking and minting. Intents provide better user experience, MEV protection, and often faster settlement through competitive solver networks.

Which cross-chain intents protocol has the lowest fees?

Eco Protocol offers the most competitive fees for stablecoin transactions with its hyper-optimized architecture, launching the cheapest stablecoin transfers in March 2025. For general bridging, Across Protocol typically provides low fees at under $1 per ETH bridged.

Are cross-chain intents protocols secure?

Yes, leading protocols use robust security mechanisms like optimistic oracles, competitive solver networks, and escrow systems. Intent-based architecture often provides better security than traditional bridges by separating user urgency from settlement complexity.

Can I use cross-chain intents for complex multi-step transactions?

Yes, advanced protocols like Anoma and Essential support complex multi-chain operations with atomic guarantees. However, simpler protocols focus primarily on asset transfers and basic swaps.

How fast are cross-chain intent settlements?

Settlement times vary by protocol and chain combination, but leading solutions like Across typically complete transfers in under 1 minute. Eco aims for even faster execution for stablecoin transactions, with sub-second transaction finality.

Do I need to hold gas tokens on destination chains?

No, one of the key benefits of intent-based protocols is gas abstraction. Solvers handle gas payments on destination chains, and users typically pay fees in their input tokens. UniswapX implemented gasless swaps in July 2025, further advancing this trend.

Which protocols support the most blockchain networks?

Across Protocol supports close to 20 EVM-compatible chains, while Eco focuses on Ethereum and Layer 2 solutions. Coverage varies significantly between protocols based on their architectural approaches.

Are cross-chain intents suitable for large transactions?

Yes, intent-based protocols can handle large transactions efficiently. The competitive solver model often provides better execution for large orders compared to traditional AMM-based bridges.

The cross-chain intents landscape represents the future of blockchain interoperability, offering users significant improvements in simplicity and efficiency for multi-chain operations. The launch of the Open Intents Framework by the Ethereum Foundation in 2025, combined with growing standardization through ERC-7683, demonstrates strong institutional support and coordinated development efforts across the ecosystem.

While each protocol has its strengths and ideal use cases, the overall trend toward intent-based architecture is clear and growing, with major Layer 2s and infrastructure providers actively supporting these initiatives. This makes now a good time to explore these innovative solutions as they mature and gain broader adoption.