Arbitrum One excels at maximizing security and decentralization by using a Classic Rollup design. It posts all transaction data to Ethereum's L1 for permanent availability, inheriting Ethereum's robust security guarantees. This makes it the premier choice for high-value DeFi protocols and institutional applications, evidenced by its dominant $2.5B+ TVL and hosting major protocols like GMX, Uniswap, and Aave.
LABS
Comparisons
Arbitrum Nova vs Arbitrum One: AnyTrust vs Classic Rollup DA
A technical analysis comparing Arbitrum's two mainnet solutions, focusing on the core trade-off between cost efficiency via AnyTrust's Data Availability Committee and the maximal security of One's on-chain data availability.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Arbitrum Dual-Chain Strategy
Understanding the architectural split between Arbitrum's two main L2s reveals a strategic trade-off between cost and decentralization.
Arbitrum Nova takes a different approach by implementing the AnyTrust protocol. It posts only data availability certificates to Ethereum, while the bulk transaction data is handled by a decentralized Data Availability Committee (DAC). This results in a ~90% reduction in L1 posting fees, making transactions extremely cheap—often under $0.01. The trade-off is a slightly weaker security assumption, relying on the honesty of at least 2 of 7 DAC members.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security and composability for high-value assets, choose Arbitrum One. If you prioritize ultra-low transaction costs for high-volume, social, or gaming applications, choose Arbitrum Nova. This dual-chain strategy allows developers to select the optimal scalability solution based on their specific application's needs.
tldr-summary
Arbitrum One vs. Arbitrum Nova
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance. The core choice is between a high-security, high-value rollup and a low-cost, high-throughput chain.
01
Arbitrum One: Maximum Security & Value
Classic Rollup with Ethereum DA: All transaction data is posted to Ethereum L1, inheriting its full security. This matters for DeFi protocols (GMX, Radiant), bridges, and institutional custody where asset safety is paramount. Supports the full EVM and Arbitrum Nitro stack.
02
Arbitrum One: Higher Transaction Costs
L1 Data Fees: Posting calldata to Ethereum is expensive, leading to higher baseline fees (~$0.10-$0.50). This matters for high-frequency, low-value transactions like gaming micro-transactions or social tipping, where cost is the primary constraint.
03
Arbitrum Nova: Ultra-Low Transaction Fees
AnyTrust with DAC: Uses a Data Availability Committee (DAC) to post data off-chain, slashing L1 costs by ~90%. Fees are often <$0.01. This matters for mass-market dApps like Reddit Community Points, Web3 games (The Beacon), and high-volume NFT minting.
04
Arbitrum Nova: Security & Composability Trade-off
Trusted Data Availability: Relies on a committee of reputable entities (like Google Cloud, ConsenSys) for data availability. While still secure, it's a weaker model than pure L1 posting. This matters for protocols requiring maximal decentralization or deep, trustless composability with Arbitrum One/other L2s.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Arbitrum Nova vs Arbitrum One: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of AnyTrust and Classic Rollup data availability models.
| Metric | Arbitrum Nova (AnyTrust) | Arbitrum One (Classic Rollup) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Data Availability Layer | Data Availability Committee (DAC) | Ethereum L1 |
Avg. Transaction Cost | $0.001 - $0.01 | $0.10 - $0.50 |
Time to Finality (L1 Confirmed) | ~15 minutes | ~1 week |
Throughput (Theoretical TPS) | ~40,000 | ~4,000 |
Security Model | 1-of-N Honest DAC Member | Full Ethereum Security |
Ideal Use Case | High-volume, low-fee apps (e.g., gaming, social) | High-value DeFi, bridges |
EVM Compatibility |
pros-cons-a
Classic Rollup vs. AnyTrust
Arbitrum One: Pros and Cons
Key architectural and economic trade-offs between Arbitrum's flagship rollup and its data-availability optimized chain.
01
Arbitrum One: Unmatched Security & Composability
Classic Rollup with full Ethereum DA: All transaction data is posted to Ethereum L1, inheriting its full security. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols like GMX and Aave, where the integrity of billions in TVL is non-negotiable. It ensures seamless composability with the entire Arbitrum ecosystem.
$18B+
TVL (DefiLlama)
100%
Ethereum DA
02
Arbitrum One: Higher Base Cost for Security
Expensive L1 Data Posting: Every transaction batch pays for Ethereum calldata, leading to higher baseline fees. This is a trade-off for protocols that don't require maximal security, like social/gaming apps, where sub-cent fees on Nova are more critical than cryptographic guarantees.
03
Arbitrum Nova: Ultra-Low Transaction Fees
AnyTrust with DAC Data Availability: Uses a Data Availability Committee (DAC) to post data off-chain, slashing L1 costs by ~90%. This matters for mass-adoption dApps like Reddit's Community Points or Web3 games, where user onboarding requires consistent sub-cent fees.
< $0.01
Avg. Tx Cost
04
Arbitrum Nova: Trusted Data Assumption
Relies on DAC Honesty: Users must trust that at least 2 of 7 DAC members (including ConsenSys, Google Cloud, QuickNode) are honest. This is a trade-off for applications where extreme cost reduction outweighs marginal security risk, but it's unsuitable for sovereign money protocols.
pros-cons-b
DA MODEL COMPARISON
Arbitrum Nova vs Arbitrum One: AnyTrust vs Classic Rollup
A technical breakdown of the core trade-off: Data Availability (DA). Arbitrum One uses a Classic Rollup with on-chain DA, while Nova uses the AnyTrust model with off-chain DA via the Data Availability Committee (DAC).
01
Arbitrum One: Maximum Security
Classic Rollup with On-Chain DA: All transaction data is posted to Ethereum L1 (calldata). This provides Ethereum-level security guarantees for data availability. Any validator can reconstruct the chain state independently, ensuring censorship resistance and trustlessness. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols (e.g., GMX, Uniswap) and applications where the security of hundreds of millions in TVL is non-negotiable.
02
Arbitrum One: Higher Base Cost
Cost of On-Chain Data: Posting data to Ethereum L1 is expensive. While transaction execution is cheap, the fixed cost for data (~0.24 ETH per MB) creates a higher floor for fees. This impacts micro-transactions and high-volume, low-value applications. For a project like a social media dApp with millions of small interactions, this cost model can be prohibitive.
03
Arbitrum Nova: Ultra-Low Fees
AnyTrust with Off-Chain DAC: Transaction data is handled by a permissioned Data Availability Committee (DAC), requiring only a cryptographic signature to be posted on-chain. This reduces L1 data costs by ~90-95%, enabling sub-cent transaction fees. This matters for mass-market applications like gaming (TreasureDAO), social (Reddit's Community Points), and high-frequency consumer dApps where cost is the primary barrier.
04
Arbitrum Nova: Trusted Data Assumption
Security Trade-off for Cost: Users must trust that at least 2 of 7 DAC members (including Offchain Labs, Google Cloud, QuickNode) are honest and available. While fraud proofs still secure execution, a malicious DAC majority could censor transactions. This is a calculated risk suitable for applications where the value per transaction is low, but absolute decentralization is not the top priority.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Nova vs One
Arbitrum One for DeFi
Verdict: The Unquestionable Standard. Strengths: Dominant TVL ($2.5B+), full EVM equivalence, and battle-tested security via Classic Rollup data availability (DA) on Ethereum. This is the home for protocols like GMX, Radiant, and Camelot DEX where security and capital efficiency are non-negotiable. The ecosystem of oracles (Chainlink), bridges, and wallets is mature.
Arbitrum Nova for DeFi
Verdict: Niche for Micro-transactions. Strengths: Ultra-low, stable fees via AnyTrust (Data Availability Committee). Suitable for novel DeFi primitives built around high-frequency, low-value actions (e.g., per-second rebasing, micro-staking). However, the security model is a trade-off, and the DeFi ecosystem is minimal. Not for protocols managing significant user funds.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova is a strategic decision between security guarantees and ultimate cost efficiency.
Arbitrum One excels at providing the highest security and decentralization for high-value applications because it posts all transaction data to Ethereum as calldata. This classic rollup design, secured by Ethereum's full consensus, has made it the dominant L2 with over $18B in TVL and is trusted by major DeFi protocols like GMX, Uniswap, and Aave. Its robust ecosystem of developer tools (e.g., Hardhat, Foundry) and established bridge infrastructure make it the default for serious DeFi and institutional use cases.
Arbitrum Nova takes a different approach by leveraging the AnyTrust protocol. This results in a significant trade-off: it posts data to a decentralized data availability committee (DAC) instead of Ethereum, slashing transaction fees by ~90% (often under $0.01) but introducing a mild trust assumption. This makes Nova ideal for high-volume, low-value transactions where cost is paramount, as demonstrated by its adoption for social/gaming applications like Reddit's Community Points and popular Web3 games.
The key trade-off is Security & Ecosystem vs. Ultimate Cost Efficiency. If your priority is maximizing security for high-value assets, deep liquidity, and a mature DeFi ecosystem, choose Arbitrum One. If you prioritize sub-cent transaction fees for social, gaming, or high-frequency micro-transactions and can accept the DAC's data availability model, choose Arbitrum Nova. For most financial dApps, One is the prudent choice, while Nova is a specialized tool for mass-user, cost-sensitive applications.
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