//Axelar
D+

Axelar

Risk Score 59/100·DValue
Compare
$137MTVL·BridgeWebsite →

Solid cross-chain messaging infrastructure with a battle-tested validator model, but the value-bridged vs cost-of-attack ratio and ITS mint surface warrant caution post-KelpDAO.

Risk Breakdown

Top Risks

1

Validator-set security model — attackers need to compromise a supermajority of Axelar validators to forge messages; economic cost = 2/3 of AXL staked, which is modest vs the value bridged

2

KelpDAO April 2026 $292M LayerZero exploit demonstrates that bridge-config flaws are now the dominant DeFi exploit vector; Axelar connects 55+ chains so the per-chain configuration surface is vast

3

General Message Passing (GMP) is a generic cross-chain RPC — any application using GMP inherits the security assumptions of the Axelar validator set

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Axelar safe to use?
Axelar receives a D+ risk grade (59/100) from Hindenrank, where lower scores indicate lower risk. Solid cross-chain messaging infrastructure with a battle-tested validator model, but the value-bridged vs cost-of-attack ratio and ITS mint surface warrant caution post-KelpDAO. Axelar is a cross-chain messaging network connecting 55+ blockchains via General Message Passing (GMP). Its security comes from a Cosmos-SDK Proof-of-Stake validator set (~75 validators) that signs threshold-BLS attestations for cross-chain messages. This is the classic 'external validator set' bridge security model — well-understood but with well-known failure modes. After the April 2026 KelpDAO LayerZero exploit ($292M) shifted cross-chain security into the spotlight, every bridge's validator-to-value ratio is under scrutiny. Axelar's Interchain Token Service (ITS) ships canonical cross-chain tokens with similar mint-authority architecture to LayerZero OFT — which means it inherits the same class of risk that just burned Kelp.
What are the main risks of using Axelar?
The key risks identified for Axelar are: (1) Validator-set security means an attacker compromising 2/3 of Axelar validators can forge cross-chain messages (2) ITS-issued tokens inherit the validator-set trust assumption for mint authority across every chain (3) GMP applications (Squid, ITS, etc.) inherit all Axelar security assumptions — cascade risk is high (4) Axelar does not yet slash validators for incorrectly signing cross-chain messages, only for double-signing blocks (5) Post-KelpDAO exploit, any cross-chain mint-authority design is a prime target for AI-assisted vulnerability research
What is Axelar's risk score breakdown?
Axelar scores 59/100 across eight risk dimensions: Mechanism Novelty: 8/15, Interaction Severity: 14/20, Oracle Surface: 6/10, Documentation Gaps: 6/10, Track Record: 10/15, Scale Exposure: 5/10, Regulatory Risk: 4/10, Vitality Risk: 6/10. The highest risk area is Interaction Severity at 14/20.
How does Axelar compare to other Bridge protocols?
Among 25 rated Bridge protocols on Hindenrank, Axelar ranks #24 by safety (lowest risk score = safest). Its 59/100 risk score and D+ grade place it among the riskier Bridge protocols.
Has Axelar ever been hacked or exploited?
Axelar scores 10/15 on the Track Record risk dimension, indicating some history of security incidents or exploits. Higher scores reflect more severe or frequent incidents. Review the full risk report for details.
Last scanned 2026-04-19

Get risk alerts before it's too late

Weekly grade changes, downgrade alerts, and new protocol risk findings. Free.