Throughput Scaling (Layer 2s, Sharding) excels at achieving high transaction capacity by distributing the computational load. For example, Arbitrum One processes over 40,000 TPS off-chain while settling on Ethereum, and NEAR Protocol's sharded design targets 100,000 TPS. This approach is ideal for consumer dApps like Aave and Uniswap that require low fees and high speed for millions of users, but it introduces complexity with bridges, sequencers, and potential centralization in the execution layer.
LABS
Comparisons
Throughput Scaling vs Vertical Scaling
A technical analysis comparing horizontal (throughput) and vertical scaling approaches for blockchain networks. We evaluate performance, cost, security trade-offs, and provide a decision framework for CTOs and architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Scalability Dilemma
Choosing a blockchain's scaling strategy fundamentally dictates your application's performance, cost, and decentralization.
Vertical Scaling (Monolithic L1s) takes a different approach by maximizing performance on a single, powerful chain. This results in superior atomic composability and simpler developer experience, as seen with Solana's 5,000+ TPS and Sui's parallel execution. The trade-off is demanding hardware requirements for validators, which can lead to centralization pressures, and a system-wide bottleneck if the single chain fails or becomes congested.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum decentralization and security via Ethereum, choose a throughput-scaling Layer 2 like Optimism or zkSync. If you prioritize raw performance, atomic composability, and are willing to accept a more centralized validator set, choose a vertically-scaled monolithic chain like Solana or Aptos.
tldr-summary
Throughput Scaling vs Vertical Scaling
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of two fundamental scaling paradigms. Throughput scaling (horizontal) adds parallel execution layers, while vertical scaling (on-chain) upgrades the base layer's capacity.
01
Throughput Scaling (e.g., L2s, Appchains)
Horizontal expansion via parallelization: Scales by adding new execution layers (Rollups, Validiums, App-Specific Chains). This matters for mass-market dApps requiring low-cost, high-frequency transactions (e.g., gaming, social, DeFi).
- Pros: Near-infinite theoretical TPS ceiling, isolated failure domains, customizable VMs (EVM, SVM, Move).
- Cons: Introduces fragmentation (liquidity, composability), complex bridging UX, and security reliance on the base layer or its own validator set.
02
Vertical Scaling (e.g., Monolithic L1s)
Single-layer capacity optimization: Scales by improving the base blockchain's own parameters (block size, gas limits) and client efficiency. This matters for unified ecosystems where atomic composability and maximal security are non-negotiable (e.g., core DeFi protocols, high-value NFT settlements).
- Pros: Superior atomic composability, simplified user/developer experience, and consolidated security and liquidity.
- Cons: Hard physical limits (network/CPU/storage), upgrades require hard forks, and higher hardware requirements for nodes.
03
Choose Throughput Scaling If...
Your primary constraint is cost-per-transaction and you need to serve millions of users. Ideal for:
- Hyper-scalable Social/Gaming Apps: Where activity is bursty and low-value.
- Experimenting with New VMs: Want to use non-EVM environments like Solana VM or Move.
- Regulatory/Geo-Specific Needs: Require an appchain with customized rulesets (e.g., KYC'd chain).
04
Choose Vertical Scaling If...
Your primary constraint is security and composability for high-value assets. Ideal for:
- Core DeFi Money Legos: Protocols like Aave, Uniswap, where cross-protocol atomic transactions are critical.
- Institutional Settlement Layers: Where the highest possible liveness and consensus security is required.
- Maximizing Developer Reach: Building on a single, dominant ecosystem like Ethereum or Solana mainnet.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Throughput Scaling vs Vertical Scaling
Direct comparison of architectural approaches for increasing blockchain capacity.
| Metric / Feature | Throughput Scaling (e.g., Solana) | Vertical Scaling (e.g., Monad) |
|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS | 65,000 | 10,000+ |
Primary Scaling Method | Parallel Execution (Sealevel) | Superscalar Pipelines |
State Access Bottleneck | Memory Bandwidth | CPU & Storage I/O |
EVM Compatibility | ||
Consensus Mechanism | Proof of History + Tower BFT | Optimistic Execution + Modified HotStuff |
Development Focus | Maximize raw throughput | Optimize EVM execution efficiency |
Key Innovation | Temporal Consensus (PoH) | MonadDB, Deferred Execution |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
Throughput Scaling vs Vertical Scaling
Direct comparison of scaling strategies for blockchain infrastructure.
| Metric / Feature | Throughput Scaling (e.g., Solana) | Vertical Scaling (e.g., Ethereum L1) |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Sustained) | 65,000 | 15-30 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (Simple Swap) | $0.001 | $1.50 |
Time to Finality | ~400ms | ~12-15 min |
Scaling Mechanism | Parallel Execution (Sealevel) | Sequential Execution |
Hardware Requirements (Validators) | High (256GB+ RAM, Fast SSDs) | Moderate (16-32GB RAM) |
Developer Ecosystem | Rust, C, C++ Focus | Solidity, Vyper, EVM Focus |
State Growth Management | State Fees, Archivers | Statelessness Roadmap |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
Throughput Scaling: Horizontal vs. Vertical
Choosing between scaling out (horizontal) or scaling up (vertical) is a foundational decision. This matrix breaks down the key trade-offs for high-throughput applications.
01
Horizontal Scaling (Sharding/Rollups)
Adds parallel execution layers: Scales throughput by adding new chains (shards) or L2s (rollups). This is the dominant model for Ethereum (via Arbitrum, Optimism) and Near Protocol.
- Pro: Near-linear scaling: Adding a rollup can add 2,000-40,000 TPS, independent of L1 congestion.
- Pro: Fault isolation: A failure in one shard or rollup doesn't halt the entire network.
- Con: Composability challenges: Cross-shard or cross-rollup transactions add latency (2-20 min for optimistic rollups) and complexity.
40K+ TPS
Potential per rollup
High
Complexity Cost
02
Vertical Scaling (Monolithic Chains)
Optimizes a single state machine: Increases throughput by improving the base layer's hardware/consensus. Used by Solana, Sui, and Monad.
- Pro: Atomic composability: All smart contracts and assets exist in a single global state, enabling sub-second arbitrage and complex DeFi interactions.
- Pro: Simpler developer experience: No bridging or cross-chain messaging protocols required for core logic.
- Con: Hardware centralization pressure: Achieving 10,000+ TPS often requires validators with high-end SSDs and GPUs, raising node requirements.
~1 Second
Finality Time
32+ GB RAM
Validator Spec
03
Choose Horizontal Scaling If...
Your priority is maximum theoretical scale and leveraging Ethereum's security. Ideal for:
- Independent app-chains: Games or social apps needing custom gas tokens and governance (using Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit).
- Enterprise consortia: Where a private chain (shard) must interoperate with a public mainnet.
- Risk mitigation: Isolating your application's traffic from network-wide congestion.
04
Choose Vertical Scaling If...
Your priority is ultra-low latency and single-state simplicity. Ideal for:
- High-frequency DeFi: DEX aggregators, perpetual futures, and lending protocols requiring atomic execution across many pools.
- Consumer applications: Where user experience cannot tolerate multi-minute confirmation times for simple actions.
- Teams wanting a single deployment target: Avoiding the multi-chain tooling and operational overhead.
pros-cons-b
Throughput Scaling vs Vertical Scaling
Vertical Scaling: Pros & Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for high-performance blockchain design at a glance.
01
Throughput Scaling (L1/L2) - Pro: Horizontal Composability
Unified State & Liquidity: Protocols like Uniswap V3 and Aave deploy across multiple L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism) while maintaining shared liquidity bridges. This enables cross-chain dApps without fragmenting user bases or TVL.
02
Throughput Scaling (L1/L2) - Con: Security & Settlement Latency
Dependent Security Model: Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum Nitro, OP Stack) rely on Ethereum for data availability and fraud proofs, introducing ~7-day withdrawal delays for optimistic rollups. This adds complexity for high-frequency DeFi or cross-chain arbitrage bots.
03
Vertical Scaling (Monolithic) - Pro: Atomic Execution Speed
Sub-Second Finality: Chains like Solana (400ms block time) and Sui (Object-centric model) process transactions atomically within a single state machine. This is critical for central limit order books (CLOBs) like Mango Markets or on-chain gaming with real-time interactions.
04
Vertical Scaling (Monolithic) - Con: Infrastructure Centralization Pressure
Hardware Requirements: Achieving 50k+ TPS on networks like Solana requires high-performance validators (128+ GB RAM, 1Gbps+ bandwidth), leading to fewer, more centralized operators compared to Ethereum's ~1M validators. This increases systemic risk for protocols requiring maximum censorship resistance.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Guide: When to Choose Which Approach
Throughput Scaling (L2s, Appchains) for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for high-volume, composable applications. Strengths: Enables massive user bases without congestion. Arbitrum and Optimism offer EVM-equivalent security with 2-10x lower fees. Polygon zkEVM and zkSync Era provide even lower costs via ZK-proofs. Solana (as a monolithic L1) demonstrates the throughput scaling model, supporting DEXs like Raydium and lending protocols like Solend with sub-second finality and sub-cent fees. Trade-off: Introduces bridging complexity, potential sequencer centralization risks, and fragmented liquidity across multiple chains.
Vertical Scaling (Monolithic L1s) for DeFi
Verdict: Best for maximum security and deep liquidity, but for established protocols only. Strengths: Ethereum Mainnet remains the bedrock for Uniswap, Aave, and MakerDAO, holding over $50B TVL. Its unparalleled security and decentralization are non-negotiable for storing billions in value. Settlement finality is the strongest. Trade-off: High, volatile gas fees (often $10-$50+) make it prohibitive for small transactions and limit user growth. Throughput is capped (~15-30 TPS).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict & Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between throughput scaling and vertical scaling is a foundational architectural decision with long-term implications for performance and cost.
Throughput scaling excels at achieving massive, parallelized transaction capacity by distributing load across multiple nodes or shards. This is because it decouples the processing of independent transactions, allowing for linear scaling as the network grows. For example, a sharded blockchain like NEAR Protocol can process thousands of transactions per second (TPS) by partitioning its state, while a Layer 2 solution like Arbitrum leverages optimistic rollups to batch thousands of transactions into a single Ethereum mainnet proof, achieving over 40,000 TPS in its Nova configuration.
Vertical scaling takes a different approach by maximizing the performance of a single, powerful node. This strategy results in superior state consistency and atomic composability across the entire application layer, as all smart contracts and transactions execute within a single, deterministic environment. The trade-off is a fundamental ceiling on capacity, dictated by the hardware limits of the most performant nodes. Networks like Solana exemplify this, achieving high throughput (historically 2-4k TPS for simple transfers) through optimized software and high-spec validators, but facing challenges during network congestion when the single-threaded execution hits its bottleneck.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable, low-latency performance for complex, interdependent DeFi operations where atomic composability is non-negotiable, a vertically scaled chain like Avalanche's C-Chain or a high-spec Solana validator cluster may be preferable. If you prioritize horizontally scalable capacity for high-volume, independent transactions (e.g., gaming, social feeds, micropayments) and are willing to manage the complexity of cross-shard communication or Layer 2 bridging, then a throughput-scaled architecture using Polygon zkEVM or a Cosmos app-chain is the strategic choice.
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