Polygon Avail excels at providing a dedicated, modular data availability layer built as a standalone blockchain using Validity Proofs. This design prioritizes high throughput and security for general-purpose rollups, leveraging Polygon's established ecosystem and tooling like the Polygon CDK. For example, its testnet has demonstrated the ability to process over 1,000 transactions per second (TPS) for data submissions, offering a scalable foundation for chains like Immutable zkEVM and Astar zkEVM.
LABS
Comparisons
Polygon DA vs EigenDA: Rollup Data
A technical analysis comparing Polygon Avail (DA) and EigenDA, focusing on architecture, performance, cost, and security for rollup developers and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A head-to-head comparison of two leading data availability solutions for Ethereum rollups, focusing on architectural trade-offs and real-world performance.
EigenDA takes a different approach by being a data availability service built atop Ethereum, utilizing restaking via EigenLayer. This strategy leverages Ethereum's robust economic security and validator set, resulting in a trade-off: it offers deep integration with the Ethereum settlement layer but introduces a dependency on a separate cryptoeconomic system. Its design is optimized for high-throughput, low-cost data posting for rollups like Mantle and Layer N, with a current capacity exceeding 10 MB/s.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty and a purpose-built DA chain with Validity Proof security, choose Polygon Avail. If you prioritize leveraging Ethereum's staked economic security directly and are comfortable with a service-based model, choose EigenDA.
tldr-summary
Polygon DA vs EigenDA
TL;DR Summary
Key strengths and trade-offs for rollup data availability at a glance.
01
Polygon DA: Proven Scale & Ecosystem
Production-ready network: Powers major L2s like Immutable zkEVM and ApeChain. This matters for teams needing a battle-tested, EVM-native DA layer with immediate tooling (Polygon CDK).
~0.003¢
Cost per 100KB Blob
EVM
Settlement Layer
02
Polygon DA: High Throughput Design
Optimized for blobspace: Built as a dedicated Avail chain, not a sidecar. This matters for rollups expecting high TPS (150+) and massive data volumes, avoiding Ethereum mainnet congestion.
03
EigenDA: Ethereum Security & Alignment
Cryptoeconomic security via restaking: Leverages Ethereum's EigenLayer for security. This matters for protocols where maximizing Ethereum's trust assumptions is a higher priority than absolute lowest cost.
$15B+
TVL Securing Network
04
EigenDA: Modular Flexibility
Native integration with EigenLayer AVS ecosystem. This matters for teams building vertically integrated stacks (e.g., a rollup + oracle + bridge) that benefit from shared security and coordination.
ROLLUP DATA AVAILABILITY HEAD-TO-HEAD
Polygon DA vs EigenDA: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key technical and economic metrics for rollup data availability solutions.
| Metric | Polygon Avail | EigenDA |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost (per byte) | ~$0.000001 | ~$0.0000001 |
Throughput (Blobs per second) | 32 | 648 |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||
Proof System | ZK Validity Proofs | EigenLayer Restaking |
Data Finality | ~20 min | ~10 min |
Ethereum Native Integration | Standalone Chain | Ethereum L1 Smart Contracts |
Active Rollup Integrations | Celo, Manta, Aevo | Mantle, Frax, Layer N |
ROLLUP DATA AVAILABILITY COMPARISON
Polygon DA vs EigenDA: Performance & Throughput
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and data availability guarantees for rollup infrastructure.
| Metric | Polygon Avail | EigenDA |
|---|---|---|
Data Throughput (MB/s) | ~6 MB/s | ~10 MB/s |
Data Blob Cost (Est.) | $0.001 - $0.01 | < $0.001 |
Time to Data Attestation | ~20 minutes | ~10 minutes |
Ethereum Integration | Separate Chain | Ethereum Restaking |
Data Availability Sampling | ||
Active Validator Set | 100+ | 200,000+ (via EigenLayer) |
Mainnet Status | Live | Live |
POLYGON DA VS EIGENDA: ROLLUP DATA
Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of cost, throughput, and operational metrics for data availability layers.
| Metric | Polygon Avail | EigenDA |
|---|---|---|
Cost per MB (USD, est.) | $0.001 | $0.0001 |
Throughput (MB/s) | 10 | 100 |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||
Native Ethereum Security | ||
Time to Finality | ~20 min | ~10 min |
Mainnet Launch | 2024 | 2024 |
Ethereum Restaking Integration |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Polygon DA vs EigenDA: Rollup Data
Key strengths and trade-offs for rollup developers choosing a data availability layer.
01
Polygon DA: Proven Scale
Battle-tested infrastructure: Built on Polygon's aggregated blockchain, it has processed ~1.5 million transactions per day for major L2s like Immutable zkEVM. This matters for high-throughput rollups that need a stable, production-ready DA layer with a long operational history.
02
Polygon DA: Ethereum Security Bridge
Ethereum-aligned security: Data commitments are posted directly to Ethereum L1, inheriting its full security. This matters for security-first protocols (e.g., high-value DeFi, institutional assets) where the cost of Ethereum gas is secondary to maximum liveness and censorship-resistance guarantees.
03
EigenDA: Ultra-Low Cost Leader
Order-of-magnitude cheaper: Leverages EigenLayer's restaking for security, enabling data blobs at a fraction of the cost. This matters for cost-sensitive, high-volume applications (e.g., gaming, social feeds, micro-transactions) where minimizing per-transaction overhead is the primary constraint.
04
EigenDA: High Throughput Architecture
Designed for massive scale: Built as a dedicated AVS on EigenLayer, targeting 10-100 MB/s data write speeds. This matters for ZK-rollups and optimistic chains expecting exponential user growth, where future scalability is a non-negotiable requirement.
05
Polygon DA: Higher Baseline Cost
Ethereum gas dependency: Every data commitment pays Ethereum L1 gas fees, making it more expensive than restaking-based alternatives for pure data posting. This is a trade-off for projects where minimizing absolute cost per byte is the top priority.
06
EigenDA: New Security Model
Relies on cryptoeconomic security: Security is derived from EigenLayer restakers, a new and evolving model compared to Ethereum's consensus. This is a trade-off for projects that are risk-averse and require the time-tested, maximal security of Ethereum's validator set.
pros-cons-b
POLYGON DA VS EIGENDA
EigenDA: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for rollup data availability at a glance.
01
Polygon DA: Cost & Maturity
Specific advantage: Leverages Celestia's battle-tested data availability logic with Polygon's established network. Offers ~$0.001 per MB data posting costs. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive rollups like dYdX or Immutable X that need predictable, low-cost scaling today.
02
Polygon DA: Ethereum Alignment
Specific advantage: Uses Ethereum as a settlement and consensus layer, inheriting its security properties. This matters for institutional or conservative protocols (e.g., Aave, Chainlink) that prioritize Ethereum's validator set and maximal security over pure modularity.
03
EigenDA: Throughput & Scale
Specific advantage: Built for hyperscale with 10-100 MB/s target throughput, leveraging EigenLayer's restaking for security. This matters for data-intensive applications like gaming worlds (e.g., Illuvium) or social networks that require orders of magnitude more data bandwidth than typical L2s.
04
EigenDA: Integrated Restaking Security
Specific advantage: Security is backed by EigenLayer restakers, allowing ETH stakers to opt-in and secure the DA layer. This matters for protocols betting on the EigenLayer ecosystem (e.g., AltLayer, Caldera) who want shared security and economic alignment beyond Ethereum's base layer.
05
Polygon DA: Potential Bottleneck
Specific weakness: Relies on a limited set of Polygon PoS validators (~100) for data ordering and availability. This matters for ultra-high-security applications that may prefer the decentralization of thousands of Ethereum nodes or a dedicated validator set.
06
EigenDA: Newer & Less Proven
Specific weakness: A newer, less battle-tested system compared to Celestia-based designs. The cryptoeconomic security model of restaking for DA is novel. This matters for production rollups with billions in TVL (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) that cannot afford unproven data liveness assumptions.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which
Polygon Avail for Cost & Scale
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications. Strengths: Offers the lowest cost per byte for data availability, with a current target of ~$0.10 per MB. It's designed for massive scale, supporting thousands of rollups with horizontal scaling via a modular, validator-driven architecture. Its integration with the broader Polygon 2.0 ecosystem (AggLayer, CDK) provides a seamless path for sovereign chains. Trade-off: Security is derived from the Polygon PoS validator set, which, while large and decentralized, is a distinct security model from Ethereum. Ideal For: High-volume consumer dApps, gaming, social platforms, and any protocol where minimizing L2 operational cost is the primary constraint.
EigenDA for Cost & Scale
Verdict: A highly competitive, Ethereum-aligned option for projects prioritizing ecosystem alignment over absolute lowest cost. Strengths: Leverages Ethereum stakers (via EigenLayer restaking) for cryptoeconomic security, offering a strong trust assumption. It provides high throughput (10-100 MB/s) at costs significantly below Ethereum calldata. Its design is optimized for rollups using the standard DA interface, ensuring easy integration. Trade-off: Slightly higher cost per byte than Polygon Avail, as you pay for the premium of Ethereum's security ecosystem. Ideal For: Ethereum-native rollups (Optimism, Arbitrum Orbit, zkSync Hyperchains) that want maximized security alignment without Ethereum's DA cost.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict
Choosing between Polygon DA and EigenDA hinges on your rollup's core priorities: cost efficiency and immediate ecosystem integration versus long-term decentralization and Ethereum alignment.
Polygon Avail (Polygon DA) excels at providing a high-throughput, low-cost data availability layer with deep integration into the Polygon ecosystem. Its modular design, leveraging Celestia's technology, delivers proven performance with a current throughput of ~2000 TPS and sub-cent transaction fees. For example, protocols like Astar zkEVM and Manta Pacific leverage Avail for its cost-effective scaling, benefiting from its ready-to-use tooling and compatibility with the broader Polygon CDK stack.
EigenDA takes a different approach by building a cryptoeconomically secured DA layer directly atop Ethereum, using restaking via EigenLayer. This strategy results in a trade-off: while it inherits Ethereum's robust security and decentralization, its current throughput of ~10 MB/s is lower than Avail's, and its cost structure is tied to Ethereum's gas dynamics. Its primary strength is alignment with the Ethereum ecosystem, attracting projects like Mantle Network and Celo that prioritize Ethereum's security model over absolute lowest cost.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing operational costs and leveraging a mature, high-throughput ecosystem with tools like the Polygon CDK, choose Polygon Avail. If you prioritize maximizing Ethereum-native security, participating in the restaking economy, and betting on a longer-term, decentralized DA future, choose EigenDA. For most production rollups today seeking immediate scale and cost savings, Avail is the pragmatic choice. For protocols building a deeply Ethereum-aligned future, EigenDA represents the strategic bet.
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