Layer 1 AMMs like Uniswap V3 on Ethereum or Trader Joe on Avalanche excel at providing permissionless, composable liquidity for long-tail assets. Their strength lies in predictable, on-chain execution and deep integration with the broader DeFi ecosystem (lending protocols like Aave, yield aggregators). However, this comes at the cost of high, variable gas fees during congestion and limited transaction throughput, often capping at ~30 TPS on leading chains, which directly impacts user cost and front-running vulnerability.
LABS
Comparisons
L1 AMMs vs L2 Orderbooks: The Scalability Showdown
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects on scaling decentralized exchange liquidity. We analyze the fundamental trade-offs between automated market makers on Layer 1 and central limit orderbooks on Layer 2 rollups.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Scaling Dilemma for DEX Liquidity
A foundational look at how Layer 1 AMMs and Layer 2 Orderbooks tackle the core challenge of scaling decentralized exchange infrastructure.
Layer 2 Orderbook DEXs like dYdX on StarkEx or Hyperliquid on its own L1 take a different approach by leveraging zero-knowledge or optimistic rollups. This strategy moves computation and order-matching off the main chain, resulting in ultra-low fees (often <$0.01 per trade) and high throughput (potentially 1,000+ TPS). The trade-off is often increased centralization in sequencer operations, reduced composability with mainnet DeFi, and reliance on the security and liveness of a specific L2 stack.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, censorship resistance, and seamless composability within a mature DeFi ecosystem, choose a Layer 1 AMM. If you prioritize low-cost, high-frequency trading with an experience rivaling CEXs for established asset pairs, choose a Layer 2 Orderbook DEX. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether atomic composability or transactional efficiency is the primary constraint for your protocol's liquidity model.
tldr-summary
L1 AMMs vs L2 Orderbooks: Scalability
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural trade-offs that determine throughput, cost, and user experience for high-frequency trading.
01
L1 AMMs: Horizontal Scaling
Parallel Execution: Protocols like Uniswap V4 and PancakeSwap V4 can process swaps across thousands of independent liquidity pools simultaneously, leveraging L1 parallel VMs (Solana, Sui, Aptos). This enables 10,000+ TPS for uncorrelated assets.
Trade-off: Congestion on a single high-demand pool (e.g., a new memecoin) can still cause high fees and latency, creating a 'hot pool' problem.
10K+ TPS
Theoretical Peak
~$0.001
Avg. Cost (Solana)
02
L1 AMMs: Capital Efficiency
Concentrated Liquidity: AMMs like Uniswap V3 and Trader Joe v2.1 allow LPs to concentrate capital in tight price ranges, achieving efficiency comparable to orderbooks for ~80% less TVL.
Trade-off: This requires active management and sophisticated strategies, shifting complexity to LPs. Passive, wide-range LPs face significant impermanent loss.
80% Less
TVL Required
$3.5B
Uniswap V3 TVL
03
L2 Orderbooks: Vertical Scaling
Off-Chain Matching, On-Chain Settlement: Platforms like dYdX v4 (Cosmos app-chain) and Hyperliquid (L1) run a central limit orderbook off-chain, batching settlements. This enables 100,000+ orders/sec matching with sub-second latency.
Trade-off: Introduces a trust assumption in the sequencer for fair ordering. Users trade absolute decentralization for CEX-like performance.
100K+ OPS
Matching Speed
< 1 sec
Latency
04
L2 Orderbooks: Advanced Order Types
Native Support for Pro Traders: Full-featured orderbooks on L2s like zkSync Era (via GRVT) or Starknet (via zkTrade) natively support stop-loss, limit, and trailing orders without complex smart contract workarounds.
Trade-off: Liquidity is often fragmented across L2s and app-chains. Bridging assets and managing positions across rollups adds operational overhead.
$0.02
Avg. Trade Fee (dYdX)
10+ Types
Order Types
SCALABILITY & PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
L1 AMMs vs L2 Orderbooks: Scalability
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and finality for decentralized exchange infrastructure.
| Metric | L1 AMMs (e.g., Uniswap v3) | L2 Orderbooks (e.g., dYdX v4, Hyperliquid) |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Settled) | ~50 | 20,000+ |
Avg. Trade Cost | $5 - $50 | < $0.01 |
Time to Finality | ~12 sec | < 1 sec |
Settlement Security | Ethereum Consensus | App-Specific Chain (Sovereign/CosmWasm) |
Data Availability | On L1 (Calldata) | Optional (Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) |
Native Composability |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
L1 AMMs vs L2 Orderbooks: Cost & Scalability
Direct comparison of execution costs and scalability for decentralized trading architectures.
| Metric | L1 AMMs (e.g., Uniswap V3) | L2 Orderbooks (e.g., dYdX, Hyperliquid) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Swap/Trade Fee | $5 - $50+ | $0.01 - $0.10 |
Peak Theoretical TPS | ~50 | 10,000+ |
Settlement Latency | ~12 seconds | ~1 second |
Gas Cost for Liquidity Provision | High ($100s) | Negligible |
Native MEV Resistance | ||
Capital Efficiency for Makers | Low (Range-bound) | High (Full Book) |
Primary Scaling Dependency | Base Layer (Ethereum) | App-Specific Chain/Stack |
pros-cons-a
SCALABILITY TRADEOFFS
L1 AMMs vs L2 Orderbooks: Scalability
A direct comparison of throughput, cost, and architectural trade-offs for high-volume trading. Use the metrics below to decide based on your protocol's needs.
01
L1 AMMs: Horizontal Scaling
Native multi-chain deployment: Protocols like Uniswap V3 and Curve are deployed on Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, and others, sharing liquidity via cross-chain bridges. This allows aggregate TPS to scale with the number of chains, though it fragments liquidity. This matters for protocols needing maximum security and sovereign liquidity pools on each chain.
~2.5M
Uniswap V3 30d Users (Multi-Chain)
02
L1 AMMs: Capital Efficiency
Concentrated Liquidity (CL): AMMs like Uniswap V3 and Trader Joe's Liquidity Book allow LPs to concentrate capital within specific price ranges, achieving capital efficiency comparable to orderbooks for deep, stable pairs. This matters for professional market makers and stablecoin/blue-chip pairs where predictable fee income offsets L1 gas costs.
Up to 4000x
Capital Efficiency vs V2 (Uniswap)
03
L2 Orderbooks: Vertical Scaling
Native low-latency execution: Orderbooks on L2s like dYdX (StarkEx), Hyperliquid (Hype), and Aevo achieve >10,000 TPS with sub-second finality and gas fees under $0.01. This is enabled by off-chain matching engines with on-chain settlement proofs. This matters for high-frequency trading, derivatives, and spot markets requiring CEX-like performance.
< $0.01
Avg. Trade Fee (dYdX)
10k+ TPS
Peak Throughput
pros-cons-b
Scalability Showdown
L2 Orderbooks: Pros and Cons
Comparing the core architectural trade-offs between L1 AMMs and L2 Orderbooks for high-frequency trading and capital efficiency.
01
L1 AMMs: Capital Efficiency
Passive liquidity provision: LPs earn fees from every swap, but capital is fragmented across price ranges (e.g., Uniswap V3). This matters for protocols requiring deep, permissionless liquidity pools for long-tail assets.
02
L1 AMMs: Composability
Native DeFi integration: Seamlessly integrates with lending (Aave), yield strategies (Yearn), and other on-chain logic. This matters for complex, multi-step DeFi transactions executed in a single block.
03
L1 AMMs: Bottleneck
Congestion & High Fees: Limited by base layer TPS (~15-30 for Ethereum). During peak demand, swap fees can exceed $50, making retail trading prohibitive. This is the primary driver for L2 migration.
04
L2 Orderbooks: Throughput
High TPS & Low Latency: Offloads order matching and cancellations to a dedicated sequencer. Platforms like dYdX (StarkEx) and ApeX (Arbitrum) achieve 2,000+ TPS with sub-second finality. This matters for professional trading and high-frequency strategies.
05
L2 Orderbooks: Advanced Order Types
Institutional-grade features: Supports limit orders, stop-losses, and conditional orders natively. This matters for traders requiring precise execution, a key advantage over the "price impact" model of AMMs.
06
L2 Orderbooks: Fragmentation Risk
Liquidity Silos: Liquidity is often isolated to a specific L2 rollup (e.g., dYdX on its own chain). This matters for protocols seeking broad, cross-chain liquidity access and introduces bridge dependency risks.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
L1 AMMs for DeFi
Verdict: The bedrock for liquidity and composability. Strengths:
- Deep Liquidity & TVL: Protocols like Uniswap V3 and Curve Finance on Ethereum hold billions, enabling large trades with minimal slippage.
- Battle-Tested Security: Smart contracts have undergone extensive audits and real-world stress testing over years.
- Maximum Composability: Seamless integration with the broader L1 DeFi stack (e.g., lending with Aave, yield strategies with Yearn). Trade-offs: High gas fees on Ethereum mainnet can make small transactions and complex interactions prohibitively expensive.
L2 Orderbooks for DeFi
Verdict: The future for high-frequency and sophisticated trading. Strengths:
- Sub-Cent Fees & High TPS: Platforms like dYdX (StarkEx) and Hyperliquid (custom L1) offer CEX-like trading costs and throughput (>10k TPS).
- Advanced Order Types: Native support for limit orders, stop-losses, and conditional logic.
- Capital Efficiency: Orderbook models provide tighter spreads for liquid markets compared to constant-product AMMs. Trade-offs: Liquidity is often fragmented across L2s, and composability with the broader L1 ecosystem can involve bridging delays.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Outlook
A data-driven conclusion on the scalability trade-offs between Layer 1 AMMs and Layer 2 Orderbooks for high-throughput DeFi applications.
Layer 1 AMMs like Uniswap V3 on Ethereum or Trader Joe on Avalanche excel at providing predictable, on-demand liquidity for a wide range of assets, with finality achieved directly on the base layer. Their scalability is fundamentally constrained by the underlying L1's throughput, typically 15-50 TPS for Ethereum, leading to high gas fees during congestion. However, innovations like concentrated liquidity and multi-chain deployments (e.g., Uniswap on Arbitrum, Optimism) have significantly improved capital efficiency and user access.
Layer 2 Orderbooks on networks like dYdX (StarkEx), Hyperliquid (Hype), and Aevo (OP Stack) take a different approach by offloading execution to a high-throughput environment. This results in an order-of-magnitude improvement in scalability—dYdX v3 processed over 2,000 TPS—and sub-cent trading fees. The trade-off is a more complex trust model involving sequencers and proof systems, and liquidity can be more fragmented across isolated L2 ecosystems compared to the deep, unified pools of major L1 AMMs.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing transaction throughput and minimizing cost for a specific, high-frequency application (e.g., a perps DEX), choose an L2 Orderbook. If you prioritize maximum security finality, composability with the broadest DeFi ecosystem, and permissionless pool creation, an L1 AMM remains the strategic choice, especially when leveraging its L2 deployments for scale.
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