Celestia excels at providing a neutral, permissionless, and high-throughput DA layer because it was architected from the ground up as a sovereign consensus and data availability network. For example, its current mainnet offers a theoretical throughput of ~16 MB per block, enabling rollups like Arbitrum Orbit, Eclipse, and Polygon CDK to post data at a fraction of Ethereum's cost. Its modular design separates execution from consensus, creating a specialized marketplace for data.
LABS
Comparisons
Celestia vs EigenDA: External DA Layers
A technical analysis comparing Celestia and EigenDA as external Data Availability layers, focusing on architecture, cost, security, and ecosystem for protocol architects and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Modular Data Availability
A data-driven comparison of Celestia and EigenDA, the leading external Data Availability layers for modular blockchains.
EigenDA takes a different approach by leveraging Ethereum's existing validator set and economic security via EigenLayer's restaking mechanism. This results in a trade-off: it inherits Ethereum's robust security and decentralization but is initially optimized for high-volume, low-cost data blobs for specific, integrated ecosystems like the upcoming EigenLayer AVS (Actively Validated Services) and partners like Mantle and Celo.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty, maximum throughput, and a purpose-built DA chain, choose Celestia. If you prioritize deep integration with Ethereum's security model and leveraging a restaked economic base, choose EigenDA. The decision hinges on whether you value specialized performance or inherited security from the dominant L1.
tldr-summary
Celestia vs EigenDA: External DA Layers
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of the two leading Data Availability (DA) solutions, highlighting their architectural trade-offs and ideal deployment scenarios.
01
Celestia: Modular Data Availability
Architectural Purity: A purpose-built DA layer using Data Availability Sampling (DAS) for scalable, trust-minimized data publishing. This matters for sovereign rollups and new L2s needing maximum independence from Ethereum's execution layer.
Key Advantage: Lower costs for high-throughput chains. Blobspace pricing is independent of Ethereum mainnet congestion, often 10-100x cheaper for posting large data batches.
02
Celestia: Ecosystem & Adoption
First-Mover Network Effects: The pioneer of modular DA, with a large, established ecosystem. This matters for teams seeking proven tooling and integrations.
Key Advantage: Broad Integrations: Native support from rollup frameworks like Rollkit (Cosmos) and OP Stack. Used in production by Manta, Caldera, and AltLayer rollups, securing billions in TVL.
03
EigenDA: Ethereum-Aligned Security
Leverages Ethereum Staking: Built as an AVS (Actively Validated Service) on EigenLayer, inheriting security from Ethereum's restaked ETH. This matters for projects where crypto-economic security guarantees and Ethereum alignment are non-negotiable.
Key Advantage: Shared Security Model: Data availability is secured by EigenLayer operators who also secure Ethereum, creating a unified security pool. Ideal for Ethereum L2s like Mantle and Celo that prioritize Ethereum's trust assumptions.
04
EigenDA: Integrated Throughput & Cost
High-Volume, Low-Cost Blobs: Designed for massive scale, supporting 10 MB/s+ throughput. This matters for hyper-scalable L2s and high-frequency dApps that need consistent, cheap data posting.
Key Advantage: Predictable, Low Fees: Fees are decoupled from Ethereum gas auctions. Early integrations show ~$0.10 per MB data posting costs, offering stable pricing for high-volume applications.
EXTERNAL DATA AVAILABILITY LAYERS
Feature Comparison: Celestia vs EigenDA
Direct comparison of modular data availability solutions for Ethereum rollups.
| Metric | Celestia | EigenDA |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | $0.003 | $0.0001 |
Throughput (Blobs per Second) | ~40 | ~1,000 |
Underlying Security | Celestia Validators | Ethereum Restaking (EigenLayer) |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||
Fraud Proofs | ||
Mainnet Launch | Oct 2023 | Apr 2024 |
Native Token Required | TIA | ETH (Restaked) |
Key Integrations | Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack | Manta, Movement, Celo |
EXTERNAL DATA AVAILABILITY LAYERS
Celestia vs EigenDA: Performance & Cost Benchmarks
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and technical features for rollup data availability.
| Metric | Celestia | EigenDA |
|---|---|---|
Data Throughput (MB/s) | ~6 MB/s | ~10 MB/s |
Blob Cost per MB | $0.001 - $0.01 | $0.0001 - $0.001 |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||
Proof System | Celestia Fraud Proofs | EigenLayer Restaking |
Ethereum Integration | Bridge to Ethereum | Native AVS on Ethereum |
Mainnet Launch | Oct 2023 | Apr 2024 |
Active Rollups Deployed | 50+ | 10+ |
EVM Compatibility |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Celestia vs EigenDA: External DA Layers
A data-driven comparison of the two leading external Data Availability solutions. Choose based on your rollup's specific needs for modularity, cost, and ecosystem integration.
01
Celestia's Strength: Modular Sovereignty
Pioneered modular architecture: Celestia decouples consensus and execution, allowing rollups to deploy their own sovereign execution environments (e.g., Rollkit, Optimint). This matters for teams wanting full control over their stack without being tied to a specific VM like the EVM.
02
Celestia's Strength: Cost Efficiency
Sub-cent data posting fees: Leverages Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and a purpose-built chain to offer some of the lowest DA costs in production. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications like gaming or social networks where marginal fees are critical.
03
EigenDA's Strength: Ethereum-Aligned Security
Leverages Ethereum's economic security: Built as an EigenLayer AVS, it inherits security from restaked ETH. This matters for protocols where maximizing trust minimization is paramount and aligning with Ethereum's validator set is a non-negotiable requirement.
04
EigenDA's Strength: Integrated EVM Tooling
Native compatibility with Ethereum tooling: Designed for L2s like Arbitrum Orbit and OP Stack chains. This matters for teams that prioritize developer familiarity and want seamless integration with existing wallets, indexers, and explorers in the Ethereum ecosystem.
05
Celestia's Trade-off: Ecosystem Maturity
Younger, more fragmented tooling: While growing rapidly, the modular ecosystem lacks the unified tooling depth of Ethereum. This matters for teams that need battle-tested infrastructure (e.g., oracles, bridges) and prefer a more integrated development experience.
06
EigenDA's Trade-off: Cost & Throughput Ceiling
Higher base cost structure: Fees are tied to Ethereum's gas market and EigenLayer operator incentives. While high-throughput, it may not reach the ultra-low cost floor of purpose-built DA layers for applications requiring massive, continuous data blobs.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Celestia vs EigenDA: External DA Layers
Key strengths and trade-offs for the two leading external data availability solutions at a glance.
01
Celestia: Modular Pioneer
First-mover advantage: The first modular DA layer with a live mainnet. This matters for teams prioritizing battle-tested infrastructure and a large ecosystem of integrated rollups like Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack, and Polygon CDK.
02
Celestia: Cost Leader
Extremely low, predictable fees: ~$0.01 per MB of data posted. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications like gaming or social networks where data blobs are frequent and large.
03
EigenDA: Ethereum Security
Leverages Ethereum's economic security: Data availability is secured by Ethereum stakers via EigenLayer restaking. This matters for protocols like Eclipse and Mantle that require the highest security guarantees without the full cost of posting to Ethereum L1.
04
EigenDA: High Throughput
Designed for massive scale: Targets 10 MB/s (vs. Celestia's ~0.1 MB/s). This matters for ultra-high TPS rollups and applications that need to post large volumes of data with minimal latency, such as on-chain order books.
05
Celestia: Ecosystem Risk
New security model: Relies on its own validator set and token ($TIA). This matters for teams concerned about long-term cryptoeconomic security and the maturity of a standalone proof-of-stake network versus Ethereum's established security.
06
EigenDA: Centralization & Complexity
Operator set concentration: Initial operator set is permissioned and limited. This matters for teams prioritizing decentralization and those wary of the added smart contract risk and complexity introduced by the EigenLayer restaking middleware.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Celestia for Cost & Scale
Verdict: The definitive choice for maximum throughput at the lowest cost. Strengths:
- Blob Pricing: Data availability is priced per byte, not per transaction, enabling massive scale (e.g., 100+ MB blocks).
- Modular Focus: Pure-play DA layer with no execution overhead, minimizing baseline costs for high-volume L2s and L3s.
- Proven Scale: Live mainnet supporting rollups like Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism, and Manta Pacific with sub-cent per MB costs. Best For: High-throughput appchains, social/gaming rollups, and protocols where raw data publishing cost is the primary constraint.
EigenDA for Cost & Scale
Verdict: A competitive, Ethereum-aligned alternative with strong economic security. Strengths:
- Restaking Security: Leverages Ethereum's staked ETH, offering high security per unit cost.
- Ethereum Integration: Native integration with the EigenLayer AVS ecosystem and Ethereum's consensus.
- Attested Blobs: Provides cryptographic attestations of data availability, useful for certain proof systems. Best For: Teams prioritizing Ethereum's security model, already integrated with the EigenLayer ecosystem, or building validity-proof systems that benefit from attestations.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Celestia and EigenDA hinges on your core architectural philosophy and performance requirements.
Celestia excels at providing a modular, permissionless foundation for sovereign rollups because it pioneered the data availability sampling (DAS) model, decoupling execution from consensus and data. For example, its mainnet beta has demonstrated the ability to scale data capacity linearly with light nodes, a key innovation for long-term decentralization. Projects like Arbitrum Orbit and Optimism's L3s leverage Celestia for its cost-effective blobspace, which has consistently offered lower fees than Ethereum's calldata for high-throughput chains.
EigenDA takes a different approach by building a cryptoeconomically secured AVS (Actively Validated Service) atop Ethereum, leveraging the restaking security of EigenLayer. This results in a trade-off: you inherit Ethereum's robust validator set and slashing conditions for security, but with a design optimized specifically for high-volume, low-cost data posting for rollups on Ethereum L2s like Mantle and Layer N. Its performance targets, such as supporting 10 MB/s of data throughput, are geared for scaling the existing Ethereum rollup ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty, maximum modularity, and building a new blockchain ecosystem from the ground up, choose Celestia. Its design is optimal for app-chains and L2s that want to control their own settlement and avoid being tethered to Ethereum's execution layer. If you prioritize leveraging Ethereum's deep security pool, minimizing validator coordination overhead, and are building an Ethereum-aligned L2 where cost and speed are paramount, choose EigenDA. Your choice ultimately defines your chain's security source and ecosystem alignment.
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