Alt-L1s like Solana and Sui excel at low-cost, high-throughput yield strategies due to their monolithic architecture. For example, Solana's ~3,000 TPS and sub-$0.001 transaction fees enable highly efficient, high-frequency strategies like arbitrage between Jupiter DEX aggregators and margin trading on Drift Protocol, where speed and cost are paramount.
LABS
Comparisons
Yield on Alt-L1s (Solana, Sui) vs Yield on Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Base)
A technical analysis comparing yield generation strategies, infrastructure costs, security models, and risk profiles for DeFi architects and capital allocators.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Yield Sourcing Dilemma
A data-driven comparison of yield generation on monolithic Alt-L1s versus modular Ethereum L2s, focusing on the core trade-offs for protocol architects.
Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum and Base take a different approach by leveraging Ethereum's security and deep liquidity. This results in a trade-off: while transaction fees are higher (e.g., $0.10-$0.50 on Arbitrum), you gain access to a massive, established DeFi ecosystem with over $18B in TVL, native yield from restaking via EigenLayer, and battle-tested blue-chip protocols like Aave and GMX.
The key trade-off: If your priority is execution efficiency and micro-yield optimization for strategies requiring thousands of low-value transactions, choose an Alt-L1. If you prioritize capital security, deep liquidity, and composability with the broadest DeFi tooling, choose an Ethereum L2.
tldr-summary
Yield on Alt-L1s vs Yield on Ethereum L2s
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven comparison of yield opportunities, highlighting the core trade-offs between performance-centric monolithic chains and security-centric modular rollups.
01
Alt-L1s: Peak Raw Performance
Ultra-low latency & high throughput: Solana's 2,000+ TPS and Sui's parallel execution enable near-instant settlement. This matters for high-frequency strategies like arbitrage bots, NFT minting, and perp trading on protocols like Jupiter, Raydium, and Cetus.
2k+ TPS
Solana Throughput
< 0.5s
Avg Finality
02
Alt-L1s: Native Yield Simplicity
Unified liquidity & staking: Yield is concentrated in native protocols (e.g., Marinade Finance, Sui's Aftermath). This reduces composability risk and simplifies management, as you're not bridging assets across layers. Ideal for protocol-native stakers and liquidity providers seeking a single-chain experience.
03
Ethereum L2s: Security & Ecosystem Premium
Inherited Ethereum security with lower costs. TVL on Arbitrum and Base often commands a 'safety premium' for large, institutional capital. This matters for protocol treasuries and conservative yield farmers using established DeFi bluechips like Aave, GMX, and Uniswap V3.
$18B+
Arbitrum TVL
04
Ethereum L2s: Cross-Layer Composability
Seamless asset movement via native bridges and shared Ethereum tooling (EIP-712, ERC-4626). Enables multi-layer yield strategies (e.g., farm on Arbitrum, hedge on Mainnet). Choose this for sophisticated vaults and strategies that leverage the full Ethereum ecosystem via LayerZero, Across, and Connext.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Alt-L1 Yield vs Ethereum L2 Yield
Direct comparison of yield farming infrastructure on leading Alt-L1 and Ethereum L2 networks.
| Metric | Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Base) | Alt-L1s (Solana, Sui) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Cost (DeFi) | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.001 |
Time to Finality | ~1 - 5 minutes | < 1 second |
Peak TPS (Sustained) | ~200 - 400 | 4,000 - 65,000+ |
Native Yield Source | Ethereum Consensus & MEV | Network Inflation & Fees |
EVM Compatibility | ||
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $15B+ | $5B+ |
Dominant Yield Protocols | Aave, Uniswap, Compound | Marinade, Kamino, NAVI |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Alt-L1 Yield (Solana, Sui) vs Ethereum L2 Yield (Arbitrum, Base)
Key architectural and ecosystem trade-offs for yield strategies at a glance.
01
Alt-L1 Pro: Ultra-Low Cost & High Throughput
Sub-cent transaction fees: Solana ($0.001) and Sui ($0.01) enable micro-transactions and high-frequency strategies (e.g., per-second compounding, NFT staking) that are cost-prohibitive on L2s. High TPS (Solana: 2k-5k, Sui: 297k peak) supports complex DeFi composability without congestion. This matters for high-volume farming bots and granular yield optimization.
< $0.01
Avg. TX Cost
2k+ TPS
Sustained Throughput
02
Alt-L1 Pro: Native Staking & MEV Opportunities
Direct validator staking (e.g., Solana ~6% APY, Sui ~7% APY) provides non-custodial, protocol-level yield without smart contract risk. Unique MEV forms like Jito's liquid staking on Solana or Sui's sponsored transaction arbitrage offer sophisticated yield streams. This matters for capital allocators seeking base-layer returns and advanced MEV searchers.
~6-7%
Native Staking APY
03
Ethereum L2 Pro: Deep Liquidity & Established Protocols
Access to Ethereum's $50B+ DeFi TVL via bridges and canonical assets. Mature yield primitives like Aave, Compound, and Uniswap V3 on Arbitrum and Base offer battle-tested, audited strategies. Stronger safety guarantees from Ethereum's decentralized consensus. This matters for institutional capital and protocols requiring maximum security for large TVL.
$50B+
Ethereum DeFi TVL
04
Ethereum L2 Pro: EVM Compatibility & Developer Stack
Seamless portability of Ethereum tooling (MetaMask, Hardhat, Foundry) and smart contracts reduces migration cost and audit risk. Unified liquidity via native bridges (Arbitrum Bridge, Base Bridge) and cross-chain infra (LayerZero, Axelar). Faster finality than Ethereum (Arbitrum: ~0.5s). This matters for teams already building on EVM and projects prioritizing developer velocity.
100%
EVM Bytecode Compatible
05
Alt-L1 Con: Ecosystem Fragmentation & Newer Risks
Smaller, isolated liquidity pools compared to Ethereum's unified liquidity layer. Novel VM risks (Solana's Sealevel, Sui's Move) have shorter audit histories and fewer battle-tested security patterns. Reliance on centralized RPCs for performance can create single points of failure. This matters for risk-averse treasuries and protocols needing deep, stable liquidity.
06
Ethereum L2 Con: Higher Latency & Cost Volatility
Sequencer dependency adds latency (Base ~2s block time) and potential censorship vectors vs. native L1 finality. Fee spikes during Ethereum congestion can temporarily make L2 transactions expensive (> $0.50). Complex bridging delays (7-day challenge period for some withdrawals) impact capital efficiency. This matters for real-time trading strategies and applications requiring predictable, rock-bottom costs.
pros-cons-b
YIELD ON ALT-L1S VS. ETHEREUM L2S
Ethereum L2 Yield (Arbitrum, Base): Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of yield opportunities, highlighting the core trade-offs between high-throughput Alt-L1s and the established DeFi ecosystem on Ethereum L2s.
01
Alt-L1 (Solana, Sui) Pros: Superior Throughput & Cost
Ultra-low transaction fees: Sub-cent costs enable micro-transactions and high-frequency strategies (e.g., Solana ~$0.001, Sui ~$0.01). This matters for high-volume yield farming and leveraged strategies where gas fees on L2s can erode profits.
High Finality Speed: 400ms block times (Solana) and parallel execution (Sui) provide near-instant settlement. This is critical for arbitrage bots, liquidations, and strategies sensitive to front-running.
02
Alt-L1 (Solana, Sui) Cons: Ecosystem & Security Trade-offs
Fragmented Liquidity: While growing, Total Value Locked (TVL) is concentrated in a few major protocols (e.g., Marinade, Kamino on Solana; NAVI, Cetus on Sui). This matters for large institutional capital seeking deep, diversified pools.
Novel Security Models: These chains rely on their own validator sets and consensus (e.g., Solana's PoH, Sui's Narwhal-Bullshark). This presents a different risk profile compared to L2s secured by Ethereum's battle-tested base layer.
03
Ethereum L2 (Arbitrum, Base) Pros: Deep Liquidity & Composability
Unmatched DeFi Ecosystem: Access to the largest concentration of blue-chip protocols (Aave, Uniswap, Compound) and $20B+ in TVL. This matters for sophisticated, multi-protocol strategies and stablecoin yield.
Ethereum Security Inheritance: Final settlement and data availability on Ethereum L1 provide stronger economic security guarantees. This is non-negotiable for protocol treasuries and risk-averse institutions managing significant capital.
04
Ethereum L2 (Arbitrum, Base) Cons: Cost & Latency Overhead
Higher Variable Costs: Transaction fees, while lower than L1, are still significant ($0.10 - $1+ during congestion). This can cannibalize yields for small positions and high-frequency activities.
Slower Finality: Dependence on Ethereum L1 for finality (12-15 min) and challenge periods (7 days for some) adds latency. This is a disadvantage for time-sensitive arbitrage and creates capital inefficiency for fast withdrawals.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Strategic Fit: When to Choose Which
Yield on Alt-L1s (Solana, Sui) for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for high-frequency, low-margin strategies and novel primitives. Strengths: Sub-second finality and sub-cent fees on Solana enable high-frequency arbitrage and per-second compounding. Sui's object-centric model and parallel execution are ideal for complex, composable DeFi with dynamic assets. Native yield protocols like Kamino (Solana) and Scallop (Sui) leverage this speed for optimized vaults. Trade-offs: You accept higher infrastructure risk (historical network instability) and a less mature security auditing landscape compared to Ethereum.
Yield on Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Base) for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for security-first, high-value TVL applications and established composability. Strengths: Inherit Ethereum's battle-tested security and consensus. Massive, sticky TVL on Arbitrum and Base creates deep liquidity and proven composability with blue-chip protocols like Aave, Compound, and Uniswap. Yield strategies are built on the most audited smart contract code in existence. Trade-offs: You accept higher fees (vs. Alt-L1s) and slower finality (~1-5 seconds), making some high-frequency strategies economically non-viable.
YIELD STRATEGIES
Risk Profile Deep Dive
A technical comparison of the security, economic, and operational risks between generating yield on monolithic Alt-L1s versus Ethereum's L2 rollups.
Arbitrum offers stronger security guarantees for high-value yield. As an Ethereum L2, Arbitrum inherits Ethereum's battle-tested consensus and decentralization, with over $150B in economic security. Solana, while fast, has a history of network outages (e.g., February 2024) that can halt yield operations and liquidations. For protocols like Aave or Compound, the L2's security-through-Ethereum model provides a more robust foundation for managing collateral and smart contract risk.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between Alt-L1 and L2 yield strategies depends on your protocol's core requirements for finality, composability, and ecosystem maturity.
Alt-L1s like Solana and Sui excel at high-throughput, low-latency yield strategies due to their monolithic, purpose-built architectures. For example, Solana's sub-second block times and ~$0.001 transaction fees enable hyper-efficient arbitrage bots and high-frequency liquidity management on protocols like Kamino and Marginfi, which is impractical on higher-latency chains. This environment is ideal for strategies that rely on speed and micro-opportunities.
Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum and Base take a different approach by prioritizing deep liquidity, maximal security, and seamless composability with the Ethereum ecosystem. This results in a trade-off of higher (though still low) fees and slower finality (2-12 seconds) compared to Alt-L1s, but grants access to the largest aggregated TVL, established DeFi bluechips (Aave, Uniswap V3), and a mature developer tooling stack (Foundry, Hardhat).
The key trade-off is between frontier performance and established security. If your priority is ultra-low latency and cost for novel, high-frequency strategies, choose an Alt-L1 like Solana. If you prioritize deep, battle-tested liquidity, maximal Ethereum security, and broad composability for yield aggregation or institutional DeFi, choose an L2 like Arbitrum. For protocols where speed is secondary to trust minimization and ecosystem integration, the L2 path offers a lower-risk 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