Arbitrum Nitro excels at developer experience and immediate ecosystem compatibility because it is an optimistic rollup with full EVM equivalence. For example, its 4,800+ smart contracts and $2.1B TVL (as of April 2024) demonstrate a mature, battle-tested environment where developers can deploy existing Solidity code with minimal changes and access a deep liquidity pool.
LABS
Comparisons
Arbitrum Nitro vs Polygon CDK: Optimistic vs ZK-Rollup Tech
A direct technical comparison for CTOs and architects, analyzing the trade-offs between the mature Arbitrum Nitro optimistic stack and the modular Polygon CDK ZK-rollup framework.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Rollup Framework Dilemma
Choosing between Arbitrum Nitro and Polygon CDK is a foundational decision between the mature, EVM-equivalent optimistic rollup and the modular, future-proof ZK-rollup framework.
Polygon CDK takes a different approach by providing a modular ZK-rollup framework powered by zkEVM technology. This results in a trade-off: while initial setup is more complex and the ecosystem for each new chain is nascent, it offers superior long-term security via cryptographic validity proofs, near-instant finality on Ethereum L1, and a unified liquidity layer through the Polygon AggLayer, enabling seamless cross-chain interoperability.
The key trade-off: If your priority is proven ecosystem depth, lowest migration cost, and maximum compatibility today, choose Arbitrum Nitro. If you prioritize sovereign chain design, cryptographic security guarantees, and building for a modular, interconnected future, choose Polygon CDK.
tldr-summary
Arbitrum Nitro vs Polygon CDK
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of the core architectural and operational trade-offs between Optimistic and ZK-Rollup stacks.
01
Arbitrum Nitro: Production-Proven Scale
Specific advantage: Processes ~10,000 TPS with sub-$0.01 fees for basic swaps. This matters for high-frequency DeFi protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3, which require low-cost, high-throughput execution today.
$18B+
TVL
~10K TPS
Peak Throughput
03
Polygon CDK: Cryptographic Finality
Specific advantage: Leverages ZK-proofs (zkEVM) for state transitions, providing ~10 minute finality to Ethereum L1. This matters for bridges and exchanges that require strong, mathematically-guaranteed security without a 7-day challenge window.
~10 min
Time to Finality
05
Choose Arbitrum Nitro If...
Your priority is maximizing performance and minimizing cost for a general-purpose chain today. Ideal for:
- DeFi protocols needing ultra-low fees (e.g., perpetual DEXs, yield aggregators).
- Gaming/Metaverse projects where in-game microtransactions must be cheap.
- Teams unwilling to audit new ZK-circuits and who prefer battle-tested EVM tooling.
06
Choose Polygon CDK If...
Your priority is sovereign security and native multi-chain composability. Ideal for:
- Institutions & enterprises requiring cryptographic finality for compliance.
- App-chain ecosystems (e.g., gaming studio with multiple chains) that need the AggLayer.
- Projects where the cost of proof generation is offset by the value of instant L1 finality.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Arbitrum Nitro vs Polygon CDK: Optimistic vs ZK-Rollup Tech
Direct comparison of core technical and economic metrics for two leading L2 scaling solutions.
| Metric | Arbitrum Nitro (Optimistic) | Polygon CDK (ZK) |
|---|---|---|
Time to Finality (L1) | ~7 days (Challenge Period) | ~30 minutes (ZK Proof Validity) |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Theoretical TPS (Per Chain) | ~4,500 | ~10,000+ |
EVM Compatibility | Full EVM Equivalence | EVM-Compatible (zkEVM) |
Native Token for Gas | ETH | Configurable (ETH, MATIC, native) |
Trust Assumption | 1-of-N Honest Validator | Cryptographic (ZK Validity Proof) |
Mainnet Status | Live (Arbitrum One) | Framework (e.g., Astar zkEVM, Immutable zkEVM) |
OPTIMISTIC VS ZK-ROLLUP TECH
Arbitrum Nitro vs Polygon CDK: Performance & Finality Benchmarks
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and finality for two leading L2 scaling architectures.
| Metric | Arbitrum Nitro (Optimistic) | Polygon CDK (ZK-Rollup) |
|---|---|---|
Time to Finality (L1) | ~7 days (Challenge Period) | ~30 min (ZK Proof Generation) |
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | 40,000+ | 65,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.001 - $0.01 |
Data Availability Mode | Ethereum Calldata | Ethereum Calldata or Validium (DAC) |
Fraud Proof System | Multi-round (BOLD) | Validity Proofs (ZK-SNARKs/STARKs) |
EVM Compatibility | Full EVM Equivalence | zkEVM (Type 2 or Type 3) |
Native Token Bridging | Standard 7-day delay | Instant (via ZK proofs) |
pros-cons-a
TECHNICAL COMPARISON
Arbitrum Nitro vs Polygon CDK: Optimistic vs ZK-Rollup Tech
Key strengths and trade-offs between the leading Optimistic and ZK-Rollup frameworks for building Ethereum L2s.
05
Choose Arbitrum Nitro If...
Your priority is launching fast into deep liquidity. Ideal for:
- DeFi protocols needing immediate access to Arbitrum's $2.5B+ TVL.
- Games & Social dApps where ultra-low transaction fees (<$0.01) are critical for user onboarding.
- Teams wanting absolute EVM compatibility with minimal dev overhead.
06
Choose Polygon CDK If...
Your priority is cryptographic security and a modular stack. Ideal for:
- Financial institutions & enterprises requiring mathematically verified (ZK) security and fast finality.
- Projects building an app-chain that needs native interoperability with other ZK chains.
- Teams planning for long-term scalability with optional data availability layers.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Arbitrum Nitro vs Polygon CDK: Optimistic vs ZK-Rollup Tech
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating L2 infrastructure.
02
Arbitrum Nitro: Slower Finality & Centralized Sequencing
7-Day Challenge Period: Inherits the core trade-off of optimistic rollups, delaying finality for cross-chain withdrawals. Single Sequencer model (currently Offchain Labs) introduces a centralization vector for transaction ordering. This matters for applications requiring instant, trust-minimized finality or censorship resistance.
04
Polygon CDK: Newer Stack & Prover Costs
Evolving Tooling: As a newer framework, its developer tooling (debuggers, block explorers) is less mature than Arbitrum's. Prover Operational Costs: Running a ZK prover introduces computational overhead and cost that optimistic rollups don't have. This matters for early-stage projects or teams with limited DevOps resources for managing cryptographic infrastructure.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Arbitrum Nitro for DeFi
Verdict: The established, battle-tested choice for high-value, complex protocols. Strengths:
- Dominant TVL & Liquidity: Largest L2 ecosystem with deep, established liquidity pools (e.g., GMX, Uniswap, Aave).
- EVM-Equivalence: Seamless deployment with minimal code changes; supports all existing tooling (Hardhat, Foundry).
- Proven Security: Multi-year track record with a robust, decentralized fraud-proof system. Trade-off: 7-day withdrawal period for full security, though third-party bridges offer faster exits.
Polygon CDK (ZK-Rollup) for DeFi
Verdict: The emerging choice for novel DeFi requiring near-instant finality and shared liquidity. Strengths:
- Near-Instant Finality: ~10-20 minute finality to Ethereum L1 via ZK-proofs vs. 7-day challenge window.
- Interoperable Liquidity: Native access to the Polygon AggLayer for shared state and liquidity across all CDK chains.
- Lower Latency: Faster confirmation times for a more responsive user experience. Trade-off: Newer ecosystem; some complex DeFi logic may require ZK-circuit optimization.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between Arbitrum Nitro and Polygon CDK is a foundational decision between mature Optimistic scaling and cutting-edge ZK-Rollup technology.
Arbitrum Nitro excels at providing a battle-tested, EVM-equivalent environment for rapid deployment and maximum developer familiarity. Its fraud-proof-based Optimistic Rollup architecture has secured over $18B in TVL and processed billions of transactions, offering sub-$0.10 average fees and proven reliability for protocols like GMX and Uniswap. The ecosystem's maturity means immediate access to a vast pool of tooling, wallets, and developer talent.
Polygon CDK takes a different approach by offering a modular, ZK-powered L2 factory. This strategy results in superior cryptographic security with instant finality via validity proofs, but often requires more initial configuration and may involve trade-offs in initial EVM compatibility. It's the engine behind chains like Immutable zkEVM and Astar zkEVM, which prioritize sovereignty and customizability for specific verticals like gaming or DeFi.
The key trade-off: If your priority is time-to-market, maximum ecosystem liquidity, and a frictionless Ethereum experience today, choose Arbitrum Nitro. Its network effects and developer comfort are unmatched. If you prioritize sovereignty, cryptographic security guarantees, and are building a vertically-integrated application chain for the long term, choose Polygon CDK. Its ZK-proof future and modular design offer a more customizable foundation.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall