Connext Network and Axelar Network are quite similar. In order to understand their pros and cons let’s compare them.

Full infographic at the end.

Axelar Network

We have also already considered this project (1, 2), but I will remind you its general idea. Axelar Network is a network that works as a middleman and connects all blockchains, their applications and tokens. It allows you to simply connect other ecosystem solutions to your project and expand their functionality by making them cross-chain without spending a lot of time and resources.

So a cross-chain transfer goes like this (simplified):

2 coins are selected in different networks.
Assets wrapped with the Axelar network are being prepared. It turns out axlUSDC as an example.
Generation one-time deposit addresses.
Deposit. Validators approve (or reject) the transaction. If everything went smoothly, then the desired tokens are sent to your wallet.

Axelar Satellite

Connext Network

Connext was created for similar purposes — to simplify the interaction between blockchains. This is a decentralized protocol that allows developers to create scalable and secure cross-chain bridges without introducing temporary layers.

Let’s take a look at the same transfer process in the Connext Network.

Connext is looking for a router with the best (minimal) commission.
A transaction is sent, which is processed by that router.
Claim tokens in the destination network.

Swap

For more information, see Explorer.

Transaction details from one exchange

Project Comparison

Similarities:

Using Thresholds. Both networks are as secure as their underlying networks. For example: to complete an operation in networks A and B, confirmation is required from 75% and 80% of validators, respectively. In this case, the most secure option will be used — 80%.
Slashing. Malicious validators are punished. I recommend that you also look at Connext update — Amarok.

In Connext Router, it is a node that redirects assets and acts as a liquidity provider.

Differences

Connext does not use temporary layers, unlike Axelar. As we have already established, Axelar creates one-time addresses and cross-chain operations are carried out with their help.
In Connext, because of the previous point, there is such a thing as TVL, which is $38.8kk. In Axelar, AXL tokens are staked (there was no TGE atm). Current Chain Value is $33.4kk.
Connext relies on a single router that is in charge of the entire operation. Axelar uses some kind of “collective intelligence”.
Connext transactions are executed across chains using a locking mechanism, meaning the transfer of tokens is one-to-one. Within a certain time, the router is required to transfer tokens.
A mechanism for staking NEXT tokens, calling on routers to act in their own interests, which is to maintain the network.
Different stack of modules. In Axelar, these are Cross-Chain Gateway Protocol (CGP) and Cross-Chain Transfer Protocol (CTP), while the following are used to build Connext:

Statictics

Number of networks supported by Axelar 11, while Connext 17
The number of validators for Connext — 52, and for Axelar — 42 (out of 44)
The number of supported currencies in the Ethereum network: Connext — 9, Axelar — 12. It may not be entirely correct to compare here, since only one network is taken into account, but still Ethereum — is the main network. In addition, Axelar Satellite is just one of the directions. We do not take into account Axelarsea, which operates on 5 networks at the moment.

Total transactions. Connext vs Axelar.

Supported chains. Connext (not all of them) vs Axelar (plus Axelar blockchain)

Conclusion

We cannot determine which is better. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Only time will put everything in its place.

If you’re interested in getting involved in building a better Web 3, then join the Connext team.

My media: Telegram | Youtube | Podcast | Medium | All links