Solana excels at predictable, ultra-low transaction fees due to its monolithic architecture. By processing all transactions on a single, high-throughput layer, it avoids the fragmentation and overhead costs of a multi-layer system. For example, median transaction fees typically remain under $0.001, even during periods of high network activity, making it highly cost-effective for high-frequency applications like DeFi arbitrage (e.g., Jupiter) and NFT minting.
LABS
Comparisons
Solana vs Rollup Stack: Total Fees
A technical analysis comparing the total cost structure of Solana's monolithic blockchain against modular rollup stacks like Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync. We break down fee components, scalability trade-offs, and TCO for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Fee Architecture Divide
Solana's monolithic design and Ethereum's rollup-centric roadmap create fundamentally different fee models for developers.
Rollup Stacks (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) take a different approach by inheriting Ethereum's security while operating as independent execution layers. This results in a variable fee trade-off: while base fees are often lower than Ethereum L1, they are still subject to L1 data posting costs and can spike during congestion. However, this model provides unparalleled security guarantees and access to Ethereum's vast liquidity and developer ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute cost minimization and fee predictability for a high-volume, user-facing dApp, choose Solana. If you prioritize maximizing security, decentralization, and interoperability within the established Ethereum ecosystem, even with potentially higher and more variable fees, choose a Rollup Stack.
tldr-summary
Solana vs Rollup Stack: Total Fees
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of fee economics for high-throughput applications. Solana offers a single-layer model, while Rollups (like Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) operate on top of Ethereum.
01
Solana: Ultra-Low, Predictable Fees
Fixed micro-fee model: Transactions cost ~$0.00025, with no complex gas auctions. This matters for high-frequency trading (HDR), micropayments, and social apps where cost predictability is critical for user experience.
02
Solana: No L1 Settlement Costs
Single-layer efficiency: Apps don't pay for data publication or proof verification on a separate base layer. This eliminates the variable, often dominant cost component for Rollups, making Solana ideal for pure, high-volume state updates.
03
Rollup Stack: Inherited L1 Security
Cost for security premium: Fees include the cost to post data/proofs to Ethereum L1 (~$0.10 - $1+ per tx batch). This matters for DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) and asset bridges where the security guarantee of Ethereum's consensus is non-negotiable.
04
Rollup Stack: Dynamic Fee Compression
Fee abstraction layers: Technologies like EIP-4844 (blobs) and Validiums can reduce L1 data costs by 10-100x. This matters for scaling specific verticals (gaming, enterprise) where costs can be optimized further than the base L1 allows.
SOLANA VS ROLLUP STACK: TOTAL FEES
Head-to-Head: Fee & Performance Matrix
Direct comparison of transaction economics and performance for high-throughput applications.
| Metric | Solana (Monolithic L1) | Rollup Stack (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Cost (Simple Swap) | $0.001 - $0.01 | $0.10 - $1.50 |
Cost Composition | Native L1 fee only | L2 fee + L1 data posting fee |
Peak TPS (Sustained) | 4,000 - 5,000 | 200 - 500 |
Time to Finality | ~400ms - 2 sec | ~1 min (L2) + ~12 min (L1) |
Fee Predictability | High (single layer) | Variable (depends on L1 congestion) |
Developer Experience | Single environment | Multi-layer tooling (e.g., Foundry, Hardhat) |
Dominant Cost Driver | Compute Units (CU) | Ethereum calldata gas |
pros-cons-a
Fee Structure Analysis
Solana vs Rollup Stack: Total Fees
A direct comparison of cost models: monolithic chain fees vs. layered L2/L1 settlement costs. Key for protocols with high transaction volume.
01
Solana: Predictable, Low Base Fees
Single-layer fee model: All fees are paid in SOL on the base layer, currently averaging $0.0001 - $0.001 per transaction. This provides simple, predictable cost accounting. This matters for high-frequency applications like DEX arbitrage, NFT minting, and gaming where per-action cost is critical.
$0.0001
Avg. Simple Tx Cost
02
Solana: No L1 Settlement Overhead
No extra settlement cost: Transactions are final on Solana, eliminating the mandatory Ethereum L1 data/verification fees that rollups must pay. This matters for mass-market dApps aiming for consistent, ultra-low fees without being impacted by Ethereum base layer congestion and gas auctions.
03
Rollup Stack: Variable, Multi-Layer Costs
Complex fee composition: Users pay an L2 execution fee + an L1 data publication fee (calldata or blobs). Costs can spike during Ethereum network congestion, making total fees unpredictable. This matters for budget-sensitive operations where Ethereum mainnet gas volatility directly impacts user experience.
2-Layer Fee
Cost Structure
04
Rollup Stack: Potential for Batch Efficiency
Cost amortization: Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism batch thousands of transactions into a single L1 settlement, reducing the per-user data cost. With EIP-4844 blob transactions, this can drive fees below $0.01. This matters for EVM-native applications that prioritize ecosystem alignment over absolute lowest cost and can benefit from batch economies of scale.
pros-cons-b
Total Fees: Solana vs. Rollups
Rollup Stack: Pros and Cons
Comparing the total cost of operation for high-throughput applications. Fees are a function of architecture, data availability, and execution environment.
01
Solana: Predictable, Low Execution Fees
Fixed, ultra-low per-transaction cost: ~$0.00001 per simple transfer. Fees are paid purely for execution and state updates on a single, unified layer. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) bots, micropayments, and social apps where user experience depends on consistent, negligible costs.
~$0.00001
Avg. Simple TX Fee
02
Solana: No Recurring L1 Settlement Costs
No separate data or proof posting fees. As a monolithic L1, Solana avoids the mandatory, periodic costs that rollups incur to post data and proofs to Ethereum L1. This matters for protocols with sustained high volume, as rollup costs scale with usage, while Solana's base layer costs are absorbed by validator rewards.
03
Rollups: Variable, Multi-Layer Fee Structure
Fees = Execution + Data Availability (DA) + Settlement. Total cost is the sum of the rollup's execution fee (often low) and the cost to post transaction data to a DA layer (e.g., Ethereum blob storage at ~$0.01 per 125 KB). This matters for applications with large calldata or complex state transitions, where DA costs can dominate.
~$0.01
Per 125 KB Blob (Ethereum)
04
Rollups: Cost Volatility Tied to L1
DA/Settlement fees are subject to L1 congestion. During Ethereum network spikes, the cost to post rollup batches can increase 10-100x, making total fees unpredictable. This matters for budget-sensitive consumer dApps that cannot guarantee stable operating costs, unlike Solana's more insulated fee market.
06
Solana: Simpler Cost Accounting & UX
Single fee token (SOL) and one fee payment. Users and developers don't need to manage separate gas tokens for L2 execution and L1 data, simplifying wallets and accounting. This matters for mass-market adoption and enterprise finance where operational complexity is a major barrier. Rollups often require bridging and managing multiple token balances.
SOLANA VS ROLLUP STACK: TOTAL FEES
Cost Breakdown: Fee Components and Predictability
Direct comparison of fee structure, predictability, and cost drivers for a monolithic L1 versus a modular rollup stack.
| Fee Component | Solana (Monolithic L1) | Rollup Stack (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Simple Transfer Cost | $0.001 - $0.01 | $0.10 - $0.50 |
Fee Predictability | High (Single-layer pricing) | Medium (L2 + L1 gas volatility) |
Primary Cost Driver | Network Compute Units (CU) | L1 Data Publication + L2 Execution |
Max Theoretical TPS | 65,000 | 4,000+ |
Fee Market Mechanism | Localized (per validator) | Global (inherits L1 congestion) |
Cost for Complex Swap (Uniswap) | $0.02 - $0.10 | $0.50 - $2.00 |
Data Availability Cost | Bundled (no separate fee) | Major cost component (to Ethereum) |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Solana for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for high-frequency, low-margin trading and composability. Strengths: Sub-$0.001 transaction fees enable micro-transactions and high-frequency arbitrage bots. Single-state architecture allows for atomic composability across protocols like Jupiter, Raydium, and Drift. High throughput (~5,000 TPS) supports liquidations and oracle updates under volatile conditions. Trade-offs: Network stability is a historical concern, though recent upgrades have improved. Smart contract logic is constrained by the runtime's compute limits, requiring careful optimization.
Rollup Stack for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for maximum security, deep liquidity, and complex contract logic. Strengths: Inherits Ethereum's battle-tested security and $50B+ TVL ecosystem. Rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism offer 10-100x lower fees than L1 Ethereum, suitable for large-value transactions. Supports unlimited contract complexity via the EVM, ideal for sophisticated protocols like Aave, Uniswap V3, and Compound. Trade-offs: Fees, while low, are still variable and higher than Solana's. Cross-rollup composability is more complex than single-chain composability.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A strategic breakdown of the total fee landscape, helping you align your protocol's economic model with the right infrastructure.
Solana excels at delivering predictable, ultra-low fees for high-frequency, low-value transactions because of its monolithic, high-throughput architecture. For example, median transaction fees consistently hover around $0.0001-$0.001, making it viable for applications like micropayments, high-speed DEX trading on Raydium or Orca, and NFT minting where per-action cost is critical. Its fee model is simple and native, avoiding the complexity of multi-layer gas estimations.
The Rollup Stack (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) takes a different approach by inheriting Ethereum's security while optimizing for cost. This results in a variable fee trade-off: fees are dramatically lower than Ethereum L1 (often $0.10-$0.50), but they fluctuate with L1 gas prices and include costs for data publication and proof verification. Rollups are ideal for protocols like Aave or Uniswap V3 that require maximal composability with Ethereum's ecosystem and can tolerate moderate, variable fees for higher-value operations.
The key trade-off is between cost predictability and ecosystem value. If your priority is absolute, rock-bottom fee predictability for user-facing, high-volume actions, choose Solana. If you prioritize deep integration with Ethereum's liquidity, security, and developer ecosystem and can manage variable fees, choose a Rollup Stack. For protocols with a hybrid model, consider a multi-chain deployment, using Solana for high-throughput components and a rollup for capital-intensive, composable DeFi logic.
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