Arbitrum excels at providing a tightly integrated, high-performance L2 stack because it bundles execution, settlement, and data availability (DA) into a single, optimized chain. For example, its Nitro stack achieves ~40,000 TPS in lab conditions and leverages Ethereum for security, resulting in over $18B in TVL across its rollups as of Q2 2024. This integrated approach prioritizes developer convenience and immediate network effects.
LABS
Comparisons
Arbitrum DA vs Celestia: Rollups
A technical analysis comparing Arbitrum's integrated Data Availability solution with Celestia's modular DA layer, focusing on cost, security, and architectural trade-offs for rollup developers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A data-driven comparison of Arbitrum's integrated data availability layer versus Celestia's modular, rollup-agnostic network.
Celestia takes a different approach by decoupling data availability into a modular, rollup-agnostic layer. This strategy results in a fundamental trade-off: it offers potentially lower data publishing costs (e.g., ~$0.01 per MB vs. Ethereum's ~$100+ per MB) and sovereignty for rollups, but requires developers to manage a more fragmented stack involving separate execution and settlement layers.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, a mature ecosystem, and inheriting Ethereum's security, choose Arbitrum. If you prioritize maximum cost efficiency for data, chain sovereignty, and a modular architecture designed for future scalability, choose Celestia.
tldr-summary
Arbitrum DA vs Celestia
TL;DR Summary
Key strengths and trade-offs for rollup data availability at a glance.
01
Arbitrum DA: Ethereum-Aligned Security
Leverages Ethereum for Data Availability: Stores transaction data directly on Ethereum L1 as calldata, inheriting its full security (~$500B+ network value). This matters for protocols requiring maximum liveness guarantees and sovereign-grade finality, like high-value DeFi (GMX, Uniswap) or institutional assets.
02
Arbitrum DA: Seamless EVM Integration
Native compatibility with Ethereum tooling: Uses the same data format (EIP-4844 blobs) and clients. This matters for developer experience and migration ease, allowing teams to deploy with familiar stacks (Hardhat, Foundry) and wallets (MetaMask) without adapting to a new DA layer.
03
Celestia: Ultra-Low Cost Scaling
Order-of-magnitude cheaper data posting: Dedicated DA layer with fees decoupled from Ethereum gas auctions. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications like gaming, social feeds, or microtransactions, where sub-cent fees are critical for user adoption.
04
Celestia: Modular Flexibility
Sovereign rollup and settlement layer optionality: Enables rollups to choose their own execution and settlement (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, Polygon CDK, OP Stack). This matters for teams building app-chains who need customizability and want to avoid being locked into a single L2's roadmap.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON FOR ROLLUPS
Arbitrum DA vs Celestia: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key technical metrics and features for rollup data availability solutions.
| Metric | Arbitrum DA (Ethereum) | Celestia |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | $800 | $0.01 |
Data Blob Throughput (MB/sec) | ~0.75 | ~100 |
Settlement & Consensus Layer | Ethereum L1 | Celestia (Modular) |
Time to Data Inclusion | ~12 min (Ethereum block time) | ~15 sec (Celestia block time) |
Native Fraud Proofs | ||
Native Validity Proofs (ZK) Support | ||
EVM Compatibility | ||
Mainnet Launch | 2021 (Arbitrum One) | 2023 |
pros-cons-a
DATA AVAILABILITY COMPARISON
Arbitrum DA vs Celestia: Rollups
A technical breakdown of Arbitrum's on-chain DA versus Celestia's modular DA for Ethereum rollups. Key metrics and trade-offs for CTOs and architects.
01
Arbitrum DA: Pros
On-chain security inheritance: Data is posted directly to Ethereum, inheriting its full consensus security. This is critical for high-value DeFi protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3, where data liveness is non-negotiable.
- EVM-native tooling: Seamless integration with existing Ethereum clients and indexers (e.g., The Graph).
- Proven reliability: Secures over $18B in TVL across Arbitrum One and Nova, demonstrating battle-tested resilience.
$18B+
TVL Secured
Ethereum L1
Security Base
02
Arbitrum DA: Cons
Higher baseline cost: Paying Ethereum calldata fees makes DA the primary cost driver, especially during network congestion. This impacts high-throughput, low-fee applications like gaming or micro-transactions.
- Throughput ceiling: Limited by Ethereum's ~80 KB/s data bandwidth, capping total rollup scalability.
- Less data-efficient: Does not use data availability sampling or erasure coding, leading to higher costs for equivalent data.
~80 KB/s
Ethereum DA Bandwidth
03
Celestia DA: Pros
Order-of-magnitude cost reduction: Dedicated DA layer with fees 100-1000x cheaper than Ethereum calldata. Ideal for cost-sensitive, high-volume rollups like Eclipse and Dymension.
- Scalable bandwidth: Throughput scales with the number of light nodes via Data Availability Sampling (DAS), enabling 100+ MB/s.
- Modular flexibility: Rollups can choose their execution and settlement layers (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit chains using Celestia).
100-1000x
Cheaper vs ETH Calldata
100+ MB/s
Theoretical Throughput
04
Celestia DA: Cons
Separate security budget: Relies on Celestia's own validator set and token economics ($TIA), not Ethereum's. This adds a new trust assumption for rollup developers.
- Ecosystem maturity: Tooling (e.g., indexers, bridges) is less mature than Ethereum's, requiring more integration work.
- Settlement dependency: Rollups must still use a settlement layer (like Ethereum or Cosmos) for fraud proofs and bridging, adding complexity.
Separate
Security Model
pros-cons-b
DATA AVAILABILITY SHOWDOWN
Arbitrum DA vs Celestia: Rollups
A technical breakdown of two leading data availability solutions for rollups, highlighting their architectural trade-offs and ideal use cases.
01
Arbitrum DA: Ethereum Security
Leverages Ethereum's consensus: Data is posted directly to Ethereum calldata, inheriting its battle-tested security (~$80B+ in ETH staked). This matters for high-value DeFi protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3, where data liveness is non-negotiable.
Ethereum L1
Security Base
02
Arbitrum DA: Seamless Integration
Native tooling compatibility: Works out-of-the-box with the existing Arbitrum Nitro stack (Stylus, BOLD) and Ethereum tooling (Etherscan, The Graph). This matters for teams prioritizing developer velocity and a smooth migration path from other Arbitrum chains.
03
Celestia: Ultra-Low Cost Scaling
Modular, purpose-built chain: Decouples execution from consensus/DA, enabling sub-cent data posting fees at scale. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications like gaming (Paima Studios) and social networks, where L1 fees are prohibitive.
< $0.01
Per MB (est. at scale)
04
Celestia: Sovereign Rollups
Enables full stack sovereignty: Rollups using Celestia control their own governance and upgrade path without relying on a parent chain's social consensus. This matters for appchains and ecosystems like Dymension RollApps that require maximum autonomy.
05
Arbitrum DA: Higher Baseline Cost
Cost tied to Ethereum L1: Data posting fees are subject to Ethereum's gas market volatility. This is a trade-off for teams building where security is the paramount concern over pure transaction cost minimization.
06
Celestia: New Security Assumptions
Relies on nascent consensus: While using Tendermint and economic security (~$2B+ staked), it does not inherit Ethereum's multi-year, multi-billion dollar security pedigree. This is a trade-off for early adopters prioritizing scalability today.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: Developer Scenarios
Arbitrum DA for DeFi
Verdict: The established, secure choice for high-value applications. Strengths: Directly inherits Ethereum's security via fraud proofs. Supports the full EVM, enabling easy porting of protocols like Uniswap, GMX, and Aave. High TVL (~$18B) provides deep liquidity and network effects. Battle-tested with over two years of mainnet operation. Considerations: Higher data availability costs than Celestia-based chains, but still 90% cheaper than Ethereum L1.
Celestia-based Rollups for DeFi
Verdict: A cost-optimized frontier for new, fee-sensitive protocols. Strengths: Radically lower DA costs (estimated 99%+ cheaper than Ethereum calldata). Enables high-throughput, low-fee environments ideal for perps DEXs and micro-transactions. Sovereign stack offers upgrade flexibility. Considerations: Requires building trust in a new, modular security model. Less mature tooling (e.g., The Graph, Block Explorers) and smaller initial liquidity pools compared to Arbitrum.
ARBITRUM DA VS CELESTIA
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Security
A data-driven comparison of Arbitrum's AnyTrust-based DA and Celestia's modular DA for rollup security, costs, and performance. Understand the core trade-offs for your protocol.
Arbitrum DA is an integrated AnyTrust chain, while Celestia is a modular data availability (DA) network. Arbitrum Nova uses a Data Availability Committee (DAC) to post data off-chain, relying on a 2-of-N honest majority assumption for security. Celestia provides a pure, permissionless DA layer where rollups post their transaction data directly to Celestia's consensus layer, secured by its validator set and data availability sampling (DAS). This makes Arbitrum's model a hybrid security solution, whereas Celestia offers a sovereign, modular security base.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your rollup's data availability layer selection.
Arbitrum DA excels at providing a seamless, battle-tested experience for Ethereum-centric applications because it leverages the Ethereum mainnet's security and deep liquidity. For example, with over $2.5B in TVL and a proven track record of processing millions of transactions, it offers a low-friction path for protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3 that require tight integration with Ethereum's DeFi ecosystem and finality guarantees.
Celestia takes a different approach by decoupling consensus and execution, creating a modular data availability layer. This results in a fundamental trade-off: you gain massively scalable and cost-effective data posting—with fees often a fraction of a cent—but you inherit the nascent security and liveness assumptions of a new, sovereign consensus layer, which currently has a smaller validator set compared to Ethereum.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security and leveraging Ethereum's network effects for a high-value DeFi or institutional application, choose Arbitrum DA. If you prioritize minimizing data costs and embracing modular flexibility for a high-throughput social or gaming dApp where ultra-low fees are critical, choose Celestia. Your choice ultimately hinges on whether you value Ethereum's established security budget or the cost efficiency of a specialized data availability marketplace.
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