Celestia excels at maximizing throughput and minimizing costs by using Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and Namespaced Merkle Trees (NMTs). This allows light nodes to securely verify data availability without downloading entire blocks, enabling high scalability. For example, its mainnet beta consistently processes 40-100 TPS for rollup data, with transaction fees often below $0.001. This makes it the go-to for high-volume, cost-sensitive rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and Eclipse.
LABS
Comparisons
Celestia vs Avail: Data Availability Networks
A technical, data-driven comparison of Celestia and Avail, the leading modular data availability layers. This analysis covers core architecture, performance, cost, and ecosystem to help CTOs and protocol architects make an informed infrastructure decision.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Modular Data Availability
Celestia and Avail represent two distinct architectural visions for the modular stack's data availability layer, forcing CTOs to choose between raw scalability and robust security.
Avail takes a different approach by building a robust, application-agnostic base layer with its own consensus (Nominated Proof-of-Stake) and a focus on validity proofs and data availability proofs. This results in a trade-off: while currently offering lower raw throughput (approx. 50-70 TPS), it provides stronger cryptographic guarantees and is designed as a foundational layer for sovereign rollups and standalone chains, attracting projects like Polygon CDK and AltLayer that prioritize security and future-proofing.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing cost and maximizing scale for a high-throughput rollup, choose Celestia. If you prioritize cryptographic security, a dedicated consensus layer, and building sovereign chains, choose Avail. Your choice fundamentally shapes your stack's economics, security model, and long-term roadmap.
tldr-summary
Celestia vs Avail: DA Networks
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of core architectural and market differentiators to guide your data availability layer selection.
01
Choose Celestia for Market Maturity
First-mover advantage: Launched mainnet in Oct 2023 with $1.4B+ TVL in modular ecosystems (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack). This matters for teams prioritizing established tooling (Rollkit, Dymension RDK) and a large, proven deployment base.
$1.4B+
Ecosystem TVL
Oct 2023
Mainnet Live
03
Choose Celestia for Cost-Effective Scaling
Optimized for blobspace: Sub-cent transaction fees for high-throughput rollups by decoupling execution. This matters for high-frequency dApps (gaming, social) and teams with strict operational budgets, leveraging EIP-4844 compatible blobs.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Celestia vs Avail: Data Availability Networks
Direct comparison of key architectural and economic metrics for modular DA layers.
| Metric | Celestia | Avail |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | $0.003 | $0.001 |
Blob Size Limit per Block | 8 MB | 16 MB |
Consensus Mechanism | Tendermint (Optimistic) | BABE & GRANDPA (Nominated PoS) |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||
Light Client Support | ||
EVM Settlement Integration | Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack | Polygon CDK, Arbitrum Orbit |
Mainnet Status | Live (Oct 2023) | Mainnet Beta (Mar 2024) |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Celestia vs Avail: Performance & Cost Benchmarks
Direct comparison of key metrics for modular data availability networks.
| Metric | Celestia | Avail |
|---|---|---|
Data Throughput (Blobs/sec) | ~100 MB/s | ~150 MB/s |
Avg. Blob Submission Cost | $0.001 - $0.01 | $0.0005 - $0.005 |
Time to Data Availability | ~12 sec | ~20 sec |
Light Client Security | ||
EVM Compatibility | ||
Mainnet Launch | Oct 2023 | Mar 2024 |
Native Bridge to Ethereum |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Celestia vs Avail: DA Networks
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading Data Availability solutions. Compare modular design, ecosystem, and performance to inform your infrastructure choice.
01
Celestia's Strength: First-Mover Ecosystem
Largest modular ecosystem: Over 100+ rollups deployed (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack, Dymension). This matters for teams seeking proven integration paths and a rich developer toolkit like Rollkit and Optimint.
100+
Rollups Deployed
02
Celestia's Trade-off: Limited DA Sampling
Relies on Data Availability Sampling (DAS) with light nodes: While scalable, full verification requires running a light node. This matters for applications needing the strongest, simplest cryptographic guarantees without extra client software.
04
Avail's Trade-off: Nascent Mainnet & Tooling
Newer mainnet launch (2024): Smaller current rollup footprint compared to Celestia. This matters for teams that prioritize mature developer tools, extensive documentation, and a larger pool of integrated services today.
pros-cons-b
Celestia vs Avail
Avail: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading Data Availability networks at a glance.
01
Celestia: Modular Simplicity
First-mover advantage: Launched mainnet in 2023, establishing the modular stack blueprint. Its Namespaced Merkle Trees (NMTs) allow rollups to download only relevant data, optimizing for light clients. This matters for teams prioritizing a battle-tested foundation with a large existing ecosystem like Arbitrum Orbit, Eclipse, and Caldera.
02
Celestia: Cost Efficiency
Optimized for scale: Leverages Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and a focus on pure DA to keep blob costs low. Proven by sub-$0.01 per MB transaction costs for high-throughput chains. This matters for high-volume, cost-sensitive applications like gaming or social protocols where marginal fees are critical.
03
Avail: Unified Security & Interop
Beyond raw DA: Offers a validium-like shared security layer (Avail Nexus) and a cross-chain messaging hub (Avail Fusion). This creates a cohesive environment for sovereign rollups. This matters for projects building an interconnected appchain ecosystem that needs secure, native bridging without additional trust layers.
04
Avail: Enhanced Data Integrity
KZG commitments & validity proofs: Implements advanced cryptographic guarantees for data availability, reducing trust assumptions compared to fraud-proof-only systems. Its Erasure Coding ensures data can be reconstructed from samples. This matters for high-value DeFi or institutional use cases where cryptographic certainty is non-negotiable.
05
Celestia: The Trade-off
Pure DA focus means more assembly required. Teams must source settlement and consensus elsewhere (e.g., Ethereum L1, Arbitrum, Optimism). This adds complexity but offers maximal flexibility. Choose Celestia if you want unopinionated, modular components and are willing to integrate multiple layers.
06
Avail: The Trade-off
More features can mean higher complexity and cost. The integrated security and interoperability stack may introduce overhead compared to a minimalist DA layer. Its ecosystem, while growing (Polygon CDK, StarkEx), is younger than Celestia's. Choose Avail if you value a batteries-included, unified stack over minimal composability.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Celestia for Cost Efficiency
Verdict: The clear winner for minimizing data availability costs. Strengths: Celestia's modular design and data availability sampling (DAS) are engineered for extreme cost efficiency. Its fees are typically 10-100x cheaper than Avail, as it focuses solely on ordering and publishing transaction data without execution. This makes it the optimal foundation for high-throughput, cost-sensitive L2s and L3s like Arbitrum Orbit chains, Optimism Superchain, and Polygon CDK. Trade-off: You must manage your own execution and settlement layers (e.g., using an EVM rollup stack).
Avail for Cost Efficiency
Verdict: Higher cost, but provides a more integrated feature set. Strengths: Avail's fees are higher than Celestia's but remain significantly lower than monolithic chains. The cost includes not just data availability but also a light client bridge (Avail Nexus) for cross-chain verification and a shared security layer, which can reduce development overhead. Trade-off: You pay for bundled features; pure DA cost per byte is not its primary advantage.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the core architectural trade-offs between Celestia and Avail to guide your DA layer selection.
Celestia excels at providing a minimalist, battle-tested foundation for sovereign rollups because of its pioneering use of Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and Namespaced Merkle Trees (NMTs). For example, its mainnet beta has consistently maintained >99.9% uptime, and its modular design is already the backbone for major ecosystems like Arbitrum Orbit, Eclipse, and the Cosmos SDK, demonstrating proven integration paths and developer traction.
Avail takes a different approach by building a more feature-rich, application-aware DA layer with its Validity Proofs (Kate commitments) and integrated EigenLayer-inspired shared security via Avail Nexus. This results in stronger data integrity guarantees and a unified cross-rollup settlement layer, but introduces more complexity compared to Celestia's lean protocol. Its testnet has processed over 120 million transactions, showcasing high throughput potential for dense block environments.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimalism, proven integration, and maximum sovereignty for your rollup, choose Celestia. Its elegant design minimizes trust assumptions and is the de facto standard for modular stacks. If you prioritize enhanced cryptographic security, built-in cross-chain messaging (Avail Nexus), and a unified security model, choose Avail. It is better suited for projects building complex, interoperable application chains that value Avail's integrated vision over pure modular minimalism.
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