Arbitrum One prioritizes maximum security and Ethereum equivalence by posting all transaction data directly to Ethereum L1 as calldata. This ensures the highest level of censorship resistance and data verifiability, aligning with protocols like GMX and Uniswap that manage billions in TVL. The trade-off is higher base transaction costs, as users pay Ethereum's gas fees for data storage, though these are still significantly lower than native L1 execution.
LABS
Comparisons
Arbitrum Nova vs Arbitrum One: The Data Availability Trade-off
A technical comparison of Arbitrum's two mainnets: One as a full rollup with Ethereum DA for maximum security, and Nova as an AnyTrust chain with a Data Availability Committee for ultra-low cost. This guide details the trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Fork
Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova diverge at the foundational layer of data availability, a decision that dictates cost, security, and scalability.
Arbitrum Nova takes a hybrid approach by leveraging a decentralized data availability committee (DAC) led by Offchain Labs, with members like Google Cloud and QuickNode. Transaction data is posted off-chain to the DAC, with only cryptographic commitments posted to Ethereum. This slashes data costs by over 90%, enabling sub-cent fees ideal for high-volume, low-value applications like the social gaming platform TreasureDAO and its associated games.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, full Ethereum alignment, and you're building DeFi protocols or NFT marketplaces with significant value at stake, choose Arbitrum One. If you prioritize ultra-low, predictable transaction costs for social apps, gaming, or high-frequency micro-transactions, and can accept a slightly reduced (but still robust) security model, choose Arbitrum Nova.
tldr-summary
Data Availability Architecture
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
The core trade-off is between security/trust assumptions and cost/throughput. Arbitrum One uses Ethereum for security, while Arbitrum Nova uses a committee for lower costs.
01
Arbitrum One: Ethereum Security
Data posted to Ethereum L1: All transaction data is posted as calldata on Ethereum, inheriting its full security and decentralization. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols (GMX, Uniswap) and applications where immutable, censorship-resistant data is non-negotiable.
Ethereum L1
DA Layer
02
Arbitrum One: Higher Cost, Higher Trust
~$0.10 - $0.50 per transaction: Paying for Ethereum calldata makes transactions more expensive. This is a trade-off for teams building institutional-grade applications or protocols that require maximum liveness guarantees without relying on external committees.
$0.10-$0.50
Typical TX Cost
03
Arbitrum Nova: Ultra-Low Transaction Fees
~$0.001 - $0.01 per transaction: Data Availability is managed by the Data Availability Committee (DAC), bypassing Ethereum's expensive calldata. This matters for high-volume, low-value applications like social apps (Reddit's Community Points), gaming, and frequent micro-transactions.
$0.001-$0.01
Typical TX Cost
04
Arbitrum Nova: Committee Trust Assumption
Relies on a 7-of-12 permissioned committee (including ConsenSys, Google Cloud, Quicknode) for data availability. This introduces a trust assumption and is less decentralized than Ethereum. Choose this for applications where extreme cost reduction outweighs the need for maximally decentralized security.
7-of-12
DAC Threshold
ARBITRUM NOVA VS. ARBITRUM ONE
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of data availability, cost, and performance for two leading Arbitrum chains.
| Metric | Arbitrum Nova | Arbitrum One |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Layer | Ethereum + Data Availability Committee (DAC) | Ethereum (full calldata) |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | < $0.01 | $0.10 - $0.50 |
Data Availability Cost | ~90% lower than One | Standard L1 calldata cost |
Time to Finality (L1 Confirmation) | ~7 days (DAC), ~1 week (full) | ~1 week (full) |
Security Model | Optimistic + DAC Trust Assumption | Fully Optimistic (Ethereum secured) |
Primary Use Case | High-volume, low-fee applications (e.g., gaming, social) | General-purpose DeFi & high-value dApps |
EVM Compatibility |
SECURITY & TRUST MODEL ANALYSIS
Data Availability: Arbitrum Nova vs Arbitrum One
Direct comparison of data availability layers, security assumptions, and cost trade-offs.
| Metric / Feature | Arbitrum One | Arbitrum Nova |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Layer | Ethereum Mainnet | Ethereum + Data Availability Committee (DAC) |
Security Assumption | Ethereum-level (1-of-N honest) | Committee-level (7-of-13 honest) |
Data Posting Cost | $0.10 - $0.40 per tx batch | < $0.01 per tx batch |
Data Finality on L1 | ~10 minutes (L1 confirmation) | ~20 minutes (DAC attestation) |
Censorship Resistance | ||
Primary Use Case | DeFi, High-Value Apps | Social, Gaming, High-Volume dApps |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
Arbitrum One vs Arbitrum Nova: Data Availability
A core differentiator between Arbitrum's main L2s is their data availability (DA) layer. This choice fundamentally impacts cost, security, and decentralization trade-offs.
01
Arbitrum One: On-Chain Security
DA on Ethereum: All transaction data is posted to Ethereum L1 as calldata, inheriting its full security and censorship resistance. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols (e.g., GMX, Uniswap) where the cost of data is justified by the need for maximum trustlessness and the ability for anyone to reconstruct the chain state.
~$0.10 - $0.40
Avg. Tx Cost
Ethereum L1
DA Layer
02
Arbitrum One: Developer Consistency
Full EVM Equivalence: Developers build with the same tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and security assumptions as Ethereum. This matters for teams migrating complex dApps that require no code modifications and want to leverage the mature Arbitrum One ecosystem and its $2B+ TVL.
100%
EVM Opcode Support
03
Arbitrum Nova: Ultra-Low Cost
DA via Data Availability Committee (DAC): Transaction data is posted off-chain by a permissioned committee, with only cryptographic commitments posted to Ethereum. This reduces L1 fees by ~90%. This matters for high-volume, low-value applications like social apps (TreasureDAO), gaming (The Beacon), and NFT minting where user acquisition depends on sub-cent fees.
< $0.01
Avg. Tx Cost
DAC (Off-Chain)
DA Layer
04
Arbitrum Nova: Trade-Off & Use Case
Trusted Security Model: Relies on the honesty of the DAC (members include ConsenSys, Google Cloud, QuickNode). This is a conscious trade-off of some decentralization for extreme cost efficiency. It's the right choice for specific, cost-sensitive verticals where the application's threat model does not require Ethereum-grade DA, but not for permissionless, high-value finance.
7/20 Signatures
DAC Security Threshold
pros-cons-b
Data Availability Comparison
Arbitrum Nova: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs of Arbitrum Nova's Data Availability (DA) solution versus Arbitrum One's, focusing on cost, security, and ecosystem fit.
01
Arbitrum Nova: Ultra-Low Cost DA
Leverages Ethereum as a Data Availability Committee (DAC): Data is posted off-chain to a permissioned group of trusted entities (like Google Cloud, ConsenSys, Reddit) instead of directly to Ethereum L1. This reduces L1 calldata costs by over 90%, enabling sub-cent transaction fees. This matters for high-volume, low-value applications like social apps (Reddit Community Points), gaming, and microtransactions.
>90%
Cost Reduction vs L1 DA
02
Arbitrum Nova: Optimized Throughput
Decouples execution from expensive L1 data posting: With the DAC handling data availability, block production is not bottlenecked by Ethereum's base layer gas prices. This allows for higher sustained throughput for applications where absolute decentralization of data is a secondary concern to user experience and cost. Ideal for closed ecosystems or B2B applications with trusted participants.
03
Arbitrum One: Ethereum-Grade Security
Posts all transaction data to Ethereum L1: Uses Ethereum calldata for full Data Availability, making the chain's state fully verifiable by anyone. This provides the highest security and decentralization guarantee, inheriting Ethereum's robust consensus. This is non-negotiable for DeFi protocols (GMX, Uniswap), high-value NFT marketplaces, and applications where censorship resistance is paramount.
$2.5B+
TVL on Arbitrum One
04
Arbitrum One: Full Ecosystem Composability
Universal trust assumptions and tooling: Because data is on Ethereum, it's seamlessly compatible with the broadest range of bridges (Across, Hop), oracles (Chainlink), and wallets. Developers don't need to trust a specific committee. This matters for protocols requiring maximum interoperability, like lending/borrowing platforms (Aave, Compound fork) that depend on secure cross-chain messaging.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Nova vs. One
Arbitrum One for DeFi
Verdict: The Unquestioned Standard. Strengths: Largest L2 TVL ($18B+), deepest liquidity (GMX, Uniswap, Aave), and battle-tested security with AnyTrust fallback to Ethereum. The ecosystem of Chainlink, The Graph, and Gelato is mature. Ideal for protocols where capital efficiency and maximal composability are non-negotiable.
Arbitrum Nova for DeFi
Verdict: Niche, High-Volume Use Cases. Strengths: Ultra-low, stable transaction fees (sub-cent) via Data Availability Committees (DACs). Viable for micro-transactions, social/gamified DeFi, or high-frequency interactions where cost dominates. However, liquidity is fragmented, and the security model relies on a trusted committee for data availability, a trade-off for extreme cost savings.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A clear breakdown of the core trade-off between Arbitrum One's security and Arbitrum Nova's cost, guiding your architectural choice.
Arbitrum One excels at providing a high-security environment for DeFi and high-value applications because it posts all transaction data directly to Ethereum L1. This full data availability ensures robust fraud proofs and maximum compatibility with the broader Ethereum ecosystem. For example, its massive $2.5B+ TVL and dominance in protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3 demonstrate that security-conscious builders choose this model, despite higher costs.
Arbitrum Nova takes a different approach by leveraging a decentralized data availability committee (DAC) to post data off-chain. This results in a significant trade-off: transaction fees are up to 90% lower than Arbitrum One, but the system introduces a mild trust assumption in the DAC's honesty. This makes it ideal for high-volume, low-fee applications like social and gaming projects, as seen with Reddit's Community Points and TreasureDAO's ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security and Ethereum-level guarantees for financial applications, choose Arbitrum One. If you prioritize ultra-low transaction costs and high throughput for consumer-facing, high-volume dApps, choose Arbitrum Nova. Your decision hinges on whether your users value absolute trust minimization or minimal fee expenditure.
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