ARCx excels at creating high-fidelity, protocol-specific credit passports because it uses bespoke models trained on granular, permissioned on-chain data. For example, its ARCx Credit Score for lending protocols like Maple Finance and TrueFi analyzes wallet-level transaction history, repayment behavior, and collateralization patterns, enabling more precise risk assessment for undercollateralized loans. This curated approach prioritizes accuracy and security for institutional partners.
LABS
Comparisons
ARCx vs Spectral: On-Chain Credit Scoring & DeFi Passports
A technical analysis comparing ARCx's DeFi Passport and Spectral's MACRO score. We evaluate data inputs, scoring models, and utility for undercollateralized lending and identity-based DeFi applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for On-Chain Reputation
ARCx and Spectral offer fundamentally different visions for undercollateralized DeFi, forcing a strategic choice between curated, protocol-specific scoring and open, composable credit data.
Spectral takes a different approach by building a decentralized, open credit data layer. Its MACRO Score is a non-transferable NFT generated via a user's permissioned wallet history, designed to be composable across any DeFi application. This results in a trade-off: while it offers broader interoperability with protocols like Aave Arc and Centrifuge, its generalized model may lack the deep, vertical-specific insights of a curated system.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing undercollateralized loan safety and yield for a specific protocol vertical (e.g., institutional lending), choose ARCx. If you prioritize user-owned, portable reputation that can bootstrap new DeFi primitives across ecosystems, choose Spectral.
tldr-summary
ARCx vs Spectral
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for on-chain credit scoring and DeFi passport protocols.
01
ARCx: DeFi-First Credit Scoring
Protocol-native scoring: Generates a DeFi Passport Score based solely on on-chain wallet history (e.g., loan repayments, liquidity provision). This matters for protocols needing a trustless, composable risk assessment for undercollateralized lending or tiered rewards.
02
ARCx: Sybil-Resistant Identity
Soulbound token (SBT) model: Passport scores are tied to non-transferable NFTs, preventing score farming and sale. This matters for DAO governance, airdrops, and loyalty programs where proving unique human or entity participation is critical.
03
Spectral: Multi-Chain & Machine Learning
Cross-chain data aggregation: Analyzes wallet activity across Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and BNB Chain to create a Macro Score. This matters for users and protocols operating in a multi-chain ecosystem who need a holistic credit view.
04
Spectral: Programmable Credit Logic
NOVA, a non-custodial credit bureau: Allows developers to create custom scoring models using Spectral's ML infrastructure via API. This matters for institutions and fintech builders who need to design bespoke risk parameters for novel financial products.
ON-CHAIN CREDIT SCORING & DEFI PASSPORTS
Feature Comparison: ARCx vs Spectral
Direct comparison of key technical and economic metrics for on-chain identity protocols.
| Metric | ARCx | Spectral |
|---|---|---|
Primary Scoring Model | DeFi Credit Score (0-999+) | MACRO Score (0-1000) |
Core Data Source | On-chain DeFi history | Multi-chain DeFi & NFT history |
Native Token Required for Score | ||
Supported Chains | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Base, Optimism |
Score Update Frequency | Real-time (per tx) | Every 24 hours |
Average Minting/Gas Cost | $50 - $150 | $5 - $25 |
Integrations (Examples) | Aave, Maple, TrueFi | Ribbon Finance, The Graph, Goldfinch |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
ARCx vs Spectral: On-Chain Credit Scoring & DeFi Passports
A technical breakdown of two leading on-chain credit scoring protocols. Choose ARCx for integrated DeFi utility and capital efficiency; choose Spectral for multi-chain composability and a broader data model.
01
ARCx Pro: Integrated DeFi Utility
Direct protocol integration: ARCx's DeFi Passport score directly unlocks tiered benefits within partner protocols (e.g., Aave, Morpho, Maple Finance). This matters for users seeking immediate capital efficiency, like lower collateral requirements or higher loan-to-value ratios.
10+
Integrated Protocols
02
ARCx Con: Ethereum-Centric Model
Primary focus on Ethereum L1/L2: While expanding, ARCx's core product and integrations are heavily weighted towards the Ethereum ecosystem. This matters for developers building on alternative L1s (Solana, Avalanche) or requiring a native multi-chain scoring primitive from day one.
03
Spectral Pro: Multi-Chain & Composable Score
Native cross-chain infrastructure: Spectral's MACRO Score is generated and usable across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, and Base. This matters for protocols needing a composable, chain-agnostic credit primitive that can be embedded into any DeFi application via a simple API or smart contract call.
4+
Supported Networks
04
Spectral Con: Less Direct Protocol Utility
Score-as-a-Service model: While highly composable, the MACRO Score does not automatically grant tiered access within major lending protocols. This matters for end-users who want a "plug-and-play" passport with immediate benefits, rather than a score that requires further integration by each dApp.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
ARCx vs Spectral: On-Chain Credit Scoring & DeFi Passports
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading on-chain credit scoring protocols. Choose based on your need for composable identity versus predictive risk modeling.
02
ARCx Drawback: Limited Predictive Modeling
Score based on historical on-chain data: The ARCx Credit Score is primarily a reputation score derived from past DeFi activity (e.g., liquidation history, protocol usage). It lacks the forward-looking, multi-chain risk assessment of machine learning models, making it less predictive for novel behaviors or cross-chain activity.
04
Spectral Drawback: Higher Complexity & Cost
Compute-intensive model updates: The ML model requires off-chain computation, leading to potential latency and higher gas costs for score updates compared to purely on-chain logic. This matters for applications requiring real-time, sub-second score updates or operating on ultra-low-fee chains.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
ARCx for DeFi Lending
Verdict: The specialized, high-fidelity choice for risk-based capital efficiency. Strengths: ARCx's DeFi Passport provides a granular, on-chain credit score (ARCx Score) derived from historical wallet behavior across lending, leverage, and liquidation events. This enables protocols like Maple Finance and TrueFi to implement risk-adjusted loan-to-value ratios and dynamic interest rates. Its model is purpose-built for underwriting, offering superior predictive power for creditworthiness in a lending context. Considerations: The scoring is more complex and may require deeper integration. Best suited for protocols where precise risk segmentation directly translates to competitive advantage and capital efficiency.
Spectral for DeFi Lending
Verdict: A flexible, multi-chain scoring primitive for broader DeFi integrations. Strengths: Spectral's MACRO Score is a non-transferable NFT (Soulbound Token) that aggregates data across multiple chains and asset types. Its Nova interface allows users to compute scores via arbitrary logic, making it adaptable. For lending, it can incorporate off-chain data via oracles, useful for novel collateral types. It's easier to plug into a wider array of applications. Considerations: The score is a general-purpose financial reputation metric, not exclusively fine-tuned for credit default prediction. May be less precise than ARCx for pure lending risk models.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between ARCx and Spectral to guide your infrastructure decision.
ARCx excels at creating high-fidelity, protocol-specific credit models because of its deep integration with on-chain data and permissioned scoring. For example, its ARCx Credit Score for DeFi protocols like Aave and Compound uses granular transaction history, repayment behavior, and collateralization ratios to generate a unique score per wallet per protocol. This results in highly tailored risk assessments, evidenced by its use in underwriting for isolated lending markets.
Spectral takes a different approach by standardizing credit assessment into a portable, cross-chain Spectral Score (MACRO Score) built on a permissionless, multi-chain network. This strategy results in a trade-off between specificity and interoperability. While less tailored to a single protocol, Spectral's score is natively compatible with over 8 networks (including Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon), enabling developers to implement a single credit primitive across their entire multi-chain deployment.
The key trade-off centers on data philosophy and deployment scope. ARCx's models are richer in context but siloed by protocol, ideal for building dedicated, high-stakes financial products like undercollateralized loans within a single ecosystem. Spectral's offering is less context-specific but inherently composable, making it the superior choice for applications requiring a unified identity layer across multiple chains, such as cross-chain credit delegation or portable reputation-based NFT minting.
Consider ARCx if your priority is maximizing risk assessment accuracy for a core DeFi product on a primary chain (e.g., Ethereum mainnet) and you are willing to manage protocol-specific integrations. Choose Spectral when your product roadmap is inherently multi-chain, you value developer simplicity with a standardized API, and your use case benefits from a portable identity metric over hyper-granular protocol data.
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