Ten cross-chain bridges hold $46,10 billion of locked collateral, 88% of a $52,38 billion category across 169 protocols. The largest is WBTC at $9,24 billion, and it appears on none of the published 2026 rankings. The bridge those rankings name first, Chainlink CCIP, is eighth at $1,75 billion. Figures from DefiLlama on 4 September 2026, measuring value locked rather than value moved.
| Bridge | Locked value | Share | Chains | What it locks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WBTC | $9,24B | 17,6% | 1 | Custodied bitcoin |
| Coinbase Bridge | $7,85B | 15,0% | 5 | Exchange-operated deposits |
| LayerZero V2 | $7,18B | 13,7% | 91 | Messaging layer collateral |
| Hyperliquid Bridge | $6,62B | 12,6% | 2 | Deposits into one L1 |
| Binance Bitcoin | $5,41B | 10,3% | 1 | Custodied bitcoin |
| USDT0 | $3,20B | 6,1% | 1 | Stablecoin transfer layer |
| JustCryptos | $2,59B | 4,9% | 1 | Wrapped assets on Tron |
| Chainlink CCIP | $1,75B | 3,3% | 21 | Messaging with oracle verification |
| Portal | $1,54B | 2,9% | 24 | Wormhole-based wrapped assets |
| Unit | $0,72B | 1,4% | 5 | Deposits |
What locked value measures here
Order comes from collateral currently held, as reported by DefiLlama in its bridge category on 4 September 2026, covering 169 protocols and $52,38 billion. For a bridge, that number is what is at stake: the assets sitting on one side backing claims issued on the other.
It is not throughput. A bridge that fills orders from its own inventory and rebalances later holds relatively little at any moment while moving a lot, so intent-based designs score low here by construction. Two of the five bridges named in 2026 rankings, Across and Stargate, do not appear in this category at all for exactly that reason. Ranking them against custodial designs on locked value would be meaningless, so we have not tried.
Half the top ten are not bridges in the usual sense
WBTC at $9,24 billion and Binance Bitcoin at $5,41 billion are custodians. Someone holds bitcoin and issues a token against it. Nothing routes anywhere. Coinbase Bridge at $7,85 billion and Hyperliquid Bridge at $6,62 billion are deposit paths into one destination rather than networks connecting many.
Together those four are $29,12 billion, 55,6% of the category. The genuinely many-to-many designs, LayerZero V2 at 91 chains, Portal at 24 and CCIP at 21, hold $10,46 billion between them, or 20,0%. So four fifths of what the word “bridge” covers in this table is either custody or a one-way door, which is worth knowing before reading any market-size figure for bridging.
Chain count and capital move in opposite directions
- LayerZero V2 spans 91 chains and holds $7,18 billion, third by size and first by reach by a wide margin. It is the one entry where breadth and capital coincide.
- Six of the ten sit on one or two chains. The largest, WBTC, is single-chain. Locked collateral concentrates where the asset originates, not where it can travel.
- CCIP reaches 21 chains with $1,75 billion. It is the security-first option in every published ranking and holds a fifth of what the largest custodian does. Assurance and adoption are separate variables.
- Bitcoin is the dominant bridged asset. WBTC, Binance Bitcoin and Function FBTC just below the table hold $15,33 billion between them. Most bridged value is one asset moving to where it can be used.
What to read instead if you are moving assets
Locked value tells you how much is at stake in a design, which is a risk question. If your question is instead how to get an asset from one chain to another today, the relevant comparison is routing and settlement, and we ranked those venues by volume in our comparison of cross-chain DEX venues. Several of the largest routers there hold almost nothing on this table.
If the question is which asset to move rather than how, the depth on the far side matters more than the bridge, and that is a venue question covered in the list of the top 30 decentralized exchanges and the ranking of stablecoins by supply.
What this ranking does not settle
It says nothing about security, which is the only thing that has ever mattered in this category. The largest historical losses in crypto happened at exactly this layer, and locked value measures how much would be exposed rather than how well it is defended. A large bridge is a large target.
It also excludes designs that hold little by construction, which means it is a ranking of one architecture rather than of the category. And these figures move with the price of bitcoin, since a plurality of the collateral is bitcoin. Read the source rather than the table if a decision depends on it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which cross-chain bridge holds the most value in 2026?
WBTC, with $9,24 billion of custodied bitcoin on 4 September 2026, which is 17,6% of the category. Coinbase Bridge follows at $7,85 billion and LayerZero V2 at $7,18 billion. The ten largest hold $46,10 billion of a $52,38 billion total across 169 protocols.
Why is Chainlink CCIP only eighth?
Because locked value measures adoption of a design, not its assurance. CCIP holds $1,75 billion across 21 chains, about a fifth of the largest custodian. Published rankings name it first for security, which is a different property and one no public figure in this table captures.
Why are Across and Stargate missing?
Because their design does not hold much collateral. Intent-based bridges fill an order from inventory and rebalance afterwards, so they move large volume while locking little at any moment. Ranking them against custodial designs on locked value would compare two different things, so we left them out rather than misplacing them.
How much of the bridge market is actually custody?
More than half. WBTC, Binance Bitcoin, Coinbase Bridge and Hyperliquid Bridge together hold $29,12 billion, 55,6% of the category, and none of them routes between many chains. The many-to-many designs hold $10,46 billion, or 20,0%.
Does a bridge on more chains hold more value?
Usually the opposite. Six of the ten largest sit on one or two chains, and the biggest is single-chain. LayerZero V2 is the exception, combining 91 chains with $7,18 billion. Collateral concentrates where an asset originates rather than where it can travel to.
Related reading
For the routers that move assets across these bridges, see our ranking of DEX aggregators by routed volume.