Avalanche excels at native, validator-enforced censorship resistance through its subnet architecture. Each subnet is a sovereign network with its own validator set and rules, allowing applications to define and enforce their own transaction filtering policies at the protocol level. For example, a DeFi subnet can programmatically reject transactions from OFAC-sanctioned addresses, embedding compliance directly into its state transition function. This design provides a clear, auditable, and enforceable mechanism for applications with strict regulatory requirements.
LABS
Comparisons
Avalanche vs Solana: Transaction Filtering & Censorship Resistance
A technical analysis comparing how Avalanche's Snowman++ and Solana's Proof of History handle transaction filtering, censorship resistance, and the trade-offs between DAG-based and high-throughput PoS consensus.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Censorship Resistance Imperative
A critical comparison of how Avalanche and Solana's architectural choices create distinct trade-offs for transaction filtering and censorship resistance.
Solana takes a different approach by prioritizing maximal network throughput and a unified global state, which shifts the responsibility for transaction filtering to the RPC (Remote Procedure Call) layer. Validators on the mainnet Beta cluster do not natively filter transactions, but RPC providers—who act as gateways for user transactions—can and do implement filtering. This results in a trade-off: while it maintains a simple, high-performance base layer (handling ~5,000 TPS), it creates a reliance on the decentralized availability of non-censoring RPC endpoints, a point of contention highlighted by incidents with providers like Helius and Triton.
The key trade-off: If your priority is protocol-enforced, auditable policy for regulated assets or enterprise use cases, choose Avalanche Subnets. If you prioritize maximum performance and ecosystem liquidity and are willing to manage censorship risks at the infrastructure (RPC) layer, choose Solana. The decision hinges on whether censorship resistance is a core protocol feature or an infrastructural consideration for your application.
tldr-summary
Avalanche vs Solana: Transaction Filtering
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
Core architectural choices dictate how you monitor and filter on-chain activity. Choose based on your application's need for speed, cost, or data granularity.
01
Avalanche: Subnet-Level Filtering
Architectural advantage: Transactions are isolated within custom, application-specific Subnets. This allows for targeted monitoring of a single app-chain's activity without noise from the entire network. This matters for enterprise or gaming dApps that require clean, dedicated data streams and predictable costs.
02
Avalanche: C-Chain EVM Compatibility
Tooling advantage: The primary C-Chain is fully EVM-compatible, granting access to the mature Ethers.js, Web3.js, and The Graph tooling ecosystem for event filtering. This matters for teams migrating from Ethereum who want to reuse existing indexer logic and developer knowledge.
03
Solana: Native Program-Level Filtering
Protocol-level advantage: The RPC getProgramAccounts and getSignaturesForAddress provide direct, granular filtering for specific programs (smart contracts) or accounts. This matters for high-frequency traders and real-time dashboards that need low-latency access to specific state changes without intermediate indexing layers.
04
Solana: Throughput for High-Volume Streams
Performance advantage: With sustained 2,000-3,000 TPS and 400ms block times, Solana's data stream is dense and fast. This matters for DeFi protocols and NFT marketplaces that must process and filter a massive volume of transactions with minimal lag, though it requires robust client-side processing.
AVALANCHE VS SOLANA
Head-to-Head: Transaction Filtering & Consensus
Direct comparison of transaction filtering capabilities and consensus mechanisms for high-throughput applications.
| Metric / Feature | Avalanche (C-Chain) | Solana |
|---|---|---|
Consensus Mechanism | Snowman++ (DAG-optimized) | Tower BFT + Proof of History |
Time to Finality | < 2 seconds | ~400 milliseconds |
Peak TPS (Observed) | 4,500 TPS | 65,000 TPS |
Transaction Filtering Method | EVM-based via eth_getLogs | Geyser Plugin Architecture |
Native Fee Market | ||
Avg. Transaction Fee (Simple) | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.001 |
Primary Data Indexer | The Graph, Covalent | Solana RPC, Helius |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
Avalanche vs Solana: Transaction Filtering
Direct comparison of core metrics for real-time data access and event-driven applications.
| Metric | Avalanche (C-Chain) | Solana |
|---|---|---|
Native Filtering API | ||
Avg. Filter Query Latency | ~2-3 seconds | < 1 second |
Cost per 1M Logs (Est.) | $5-15 | $0.25-2 |
Concurrent Filter Limits | 10,000 blocks | Unlimited |
WebSocket Event Subscription | ||
Historical Data Access | Full Archive | Limited (RPC Dependent) |
Primary Filtering Method | eth_getLogs | getProgramAccounts / Websocket |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Avalanche (Snowman++) vs Solana: Transaction Filtering
A technical breakdown of the core architectural approaches to transaction filtering, highlighting key trade-offs for high-throughput applications.
01
Avalanche Pro: Subnet-Level Filtering
Architectural Isolation: Each Avalanche Subnet (e.g., DeFi Kingdoms, Dexalot) operates its own virtual machine and validator set. This means transaction filtering and state execution are siloed, preventing congestion on one app from affecting others. This matters for enterprise deployments and regulated finance apps requiring dedicated throughput and compliance rules.
100+
Active Subnets
02
Avalanche Con: Developer Overhead
Infrastructure Burden: To achieve filtering and scaling, teams must bootstrap and secure their own Subnet validator set (minimum 5 validators). This adds significant operational cost and complexity compared to deploying a smart contract on a shared chain. This matters for early-stage startups or prototypes where time-to-market and capital efficiency are critical.
5+
Min Validators
03
Solana Pro: Global State Efficiency
Single Atomic Ledger: Solana's Sealevel runtime processes transactions across all programs in parallel, using stated proofs for non-overlapping accounts. Filtering is done via program-derived addresses (PDAs) and account-based parallelism. This enables ultra-low latency composability (<400ms block times) crucial for high-frequency DEXs (e.g., Jupiter) and real-time gaming where cross-program calls are frequent.
~400ms
Block Time
04
Solana Con: Congestion Contagion
Shared Resource Contention: During peak demand (e.g., meme coin launches), network-wide congestion can cause transaction failures and fee spikes for all applications, as seen in Q1 2024. While priority fees help, filtering is less granular than subnet isolation. This matters for mission-critical financial operations that require guaranteed, predictable throughput regardless of other network activity.
~$0.25
Peak Priority Fee
pros-cons-b
Transaction Filtering Deep Dive
Solana (Proof of History): Pros and Cons
Avalanche's Subnets and Solana's global state require fundamentally different approaches to data access. This comparison breaks down the key architectural trade-offs for filtering transactions.
01
Avalanche: Subnet-Level Isolation
Architectural Advantage: Each Subnet (e.g., DeFi Kingdoms, Dexalot) is a sovereign network with its own validators and virtual machine. This provides native data sharding.
Impact on Filtering:
- Precise Scope: Applications query only their Subnet's data stream, eliminating noise from unrelated chains like the C-Chain or other Subnets.
- Deterministic Performance: Query latency and throughput are isolated from the activity of other applications on the network.
- Use Case Fit: Ideal for enterprise chains, gaming ecosystems, and regulated DeFi that require clean, dedicated data feeds and predictable performance.
02
Avalanche: Custom Virtual Machines
Flexibility Advantage: Subnets can implement any virtual machine (EVM, custom WASM, Bitcoin UTXO model). This extends to their data structures and indexing logic.
Impact on Filtering:
- Protocol-Optimized Schemas: A subnet for an order-book DEX can design its transaction format and event logs specifically for efficient trade history queries.
- Specialized Indexers: Teams can build indexers tailored to their VM, potentially offering more efficient filtering than generic solutions.
- Trade-off: Increases complexity, as developers cannot rely on a single, universal toolchain like Solana's Geyser.
03
Solana: Global State, Centralized Firehose
Architectural Reality: All transactions and accounts exist in a single, global state. Data access is via a monolithic, high-throughput stream.
Impact on Filtering:
- Uniform Access: Tools like Geyser plugins, Helius webhooks, and SolanaFM index the entire network. You get a complete, if noisy, view.
- High Volume Challenge: At peak TPS (5,000-10,000+), filtering requires robust infrastructure to process the firehose. Missed data is a real risk for under-provisioned nodes.
- Use Case Fit: Best for arbitrage bots, cross-program composability tools, and analytics platforms that need to observe the entire ecosystem's activity in real-time.
04
Solana: Native Program & Account Filters
Optimization Advantage: The Solana runtime and RPC (getProgramAccounts, getSignaturesForAddress) are built for efficient filtering on specific criteria.
Impact on Filtering:
- Standardized Patterns: Filtering by
programId,dataSize, ormemcmpon account data is a well-supported, performant primitive. - Ecosystem Tooling: Services like Helius DAS API and Triton RPC optimize these queries at scale, offering enhanced APIs for common filtering needs.
- Trade-off: You are constrained to Solana's account model. Complex, multi-dimensional queries (e.g., "transfers from wallet X to contract Y involving token Z") often require external indexing.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Avalanche for DeFi
Verdict: The established, multi-chain ecosystem for institutional-grade applications. Strengths: Avalanche's C-Chain (EVM-compatible) offers deep liquidity with protocols like Trader Joe, Benqi, and GMX. Its subnet architecture allows for custom, app-specific chains with dedicated throughput and validator sets, ideal for isolated, high-value DeFi operations requiring regulatory compliance or specific fee models. Finality is sub-2 seconds. Considerations: Mainnet C-Chain fees, while low, are higher than Solana's. Complex logic may require subnet deployment for optimal performance.
Solana for DeFi
Verdict: The ultra-low-cost, high-throughput engine for high-frequency and micro-transaction DeFi. Strengths: Solana's ~400ms block time and sub-$0.001 average transaction cost enable novel DeFi primitives like Drift (perps), Jupiter (DEX aggregator), and Marinade (liquid staking) that rely on massive, frequent state updates. The single global state simplifies composability. Considerations: Network congestion from mempool-less design can cause failed transactions during peak demand. Less mature institutional tooling compared to Avalanche's subnets.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Avalanche and Solana for transaction filtering depends on your application's core requirements for finality, throughput, and architectural flexibility.
Avalanche excels at providing near-instant finality and high throughput for custom filtering logic due to its subnet architecture. For example, a subnet can be configured with specialized validators running custom VMs to filter and process transactions for a specific DeFi protocol like Trader Joe, achieving sub-second finality and handling thousands of TPS in a dedicated environment. This makes it ideal for applications requiring deterministic, fast settlement and complex, app-chain-level filtering rules.
Solana takes a different approach by optimizing for raw, global-state throughput on a single, monolithic chain. This results in exceptional performance for high-frequency, low-latency applications like Jupiter's DEX aggregator, which can process and filter millions of swap quotes across the entire state at speeds exceeding 50,000 TPS. The trade-off is that complex, stateful filtering logic must compete for global compute resources, potentially leading to congestion during peak demand, as seen in past network slowdowns.
The key trade-off: If your priority is customizability, predictable performance, and sub-second finality for a specific application vertical, choose Avalanche and leverage its subnet model. If you prioritize maximizing raw, global throughput and low-latency access to a unified liquidity pool above all else, and can architect your filtering to be extremely efficient, choose Solana.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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