Ethereum Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) excel at leveraging Ethereum's battle-tested security and decentralization by outsourcing consensus and data availability to the L1. This modular approach reduces your team's core development burden, as you inherit security from the world's largest smart contract platform, which secures over $50B in TVL. However, it introduces complex dependencies on L1 gas costs, cross-chain bridges, and the performance of the chosen data availability layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA).
LABS
Comparisons
Ethereum Rollups vs Solana: Stack Dependencies
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects evaluating the fundamental trade-offs between Ethereum's modular rollup ecosystem and Solana's high-performance monolithic chain. We analyze performance, cost, security, and developer dependencies to inform infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Modular vs Monolithic Architecture War
A foundational comparison of Ethereum's modular rollup ecosystem versus Solana's monolithic design, focusing on stack dependencies and architectural trade-offs.
Solana takes a monolithic approach by integrating execution, settlement, consensus, and data availability into a single, highly optimized layer. This results in exceptional throughput (theoretical 65,000 TPS, sustained ~3-5k TPS) and sub-second finality, creating a seamless, integrated developer experience. The trade-off is a more rigid, all-in-one stack where your application's performance and uptime are directly tied to the health and congestion of the single Solana L1.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, ecosystem composability, and the ability to choose specialized components (like a prover or DA layer), the modular rollup path is superior. Choose Solana's monolithic stack when your application demands ultra-low latency, atomic composability across all apps, and you are willing to accept the systemic risk of a single, high-performance chain.
tldr-summary
Ethereum Rollups vs Solana
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for protocol architects choosing a foundational stack.
01
Choose Ethereum Rollups for Security & Ecosystem
Inherited Ethereum Security: Final settlement and data availability on Ethereum L1, securing ~$60B in TVL. This is non-negotiable for high-value DeFi (e.g., Aave, Uniswap V3) and institutional assets.
Maximal Composability: Unified liquidity and shared security model across Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, and zkSync via bridges and shared standards (ERC-20, ERC-721).
Developer Maturity: EVM dominance with tools like Foundry, Hardhat, and extensive auditing frameworks. Over 4,000 monthly active devs build on Ethereum and its L2s.
02
Choose Solana for Throughput & State Efficiency
Native High Throughput: ~2,000-5,000 TPS with 400ms block times, enabled by parallel execution (Sealevel) and a global state. Critical for high-frequency DEXs (e.g., Jupiter, Raydium) and consumer apps.
Unified Liquidity & State: No fragmentation—all apps operate on a single, fast state. Eliminates bridging delays and liquidity silos common in multi-rollup ecosystems.
Low, Predictable Fees: Sub-$0.001 average transaction cost, stable even during high demand. Essential for microtransactions and mass-adoption scenarios like Helium Mobile and Tensor NFTs.
03
Avoid Rollups for Ultra-Low Latency Apps
Challenge: Finality Delay: Even "fast" rollups have 1-20 minute withdrawal periods to L1 (e.g., Arbitrum's 7-day challenge window, Optimism's 7-day). zkRollups like zkSync have faster provable finality (~10 min) but still add latency.
Impact: Not suitable for real-time gaming, order-book DEXs, or payment systems requiring instant, irreversible settlement. Solana's sub-second finality is superior here.
04
Avoid Solana for Maximum Decentralization & Censorship Resistance
Challenge: Validator Centralization: ~1,500 validators with heavy concentration in top entities, compared to Ethereum's ~1M validators. Higher hardware requirements (256GB+ RAM) limit node accessibility.
Impact: Greater theoretical regulatory attack surface and reliance on a smaller set of operators. For protocols prioritizing maximal decentralization (e.g., Lido, Rocket Pool) or unstoppable contracts, Ethereum's L1 + rollup stack is the proven choice.
ETHEREUM ROLLUPS VS SOLANA
Head-to-Head: Stack Dependency Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key architectural and performance metrics for infrastructure decisions.
| Metric | Ethereum Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Solana |
|---|---|---|
Execution Model | Modular (Separate L2, shared L1 security) | Monolithic (Single-layer execution & consensus) |
TPS (Sustained, Real-World) | 50 - 4,000 | 2,000 - 65,000 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (Simple Swap) | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.001 |
Time to Finality (Probabilistic) | ~15 min (via L1) | ~400ms - 2.4 sec |
Primary Data Availability Layer | Ethereum L1 | Solana Validators |
EVM Compatibility | ||
Native Cross-Chain Messaging | Native to L1 (e.g., Arbitrum Bridge) | Wormhole, LayerZero required |
ETHEREUM ROLLUPS VS SOLANA
Performance Benchards: Throughput, Latency, Finality
Direct comparison of key performance metrics and architectural dependencies for high-throughput applications.
| Metric | Ethereum Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Solana |
|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS | 4,000 - 100,000+ | 65,000 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (Simple Swap) | $0.10 - $1.50 | < $0.001 |
Time to Finality (Probabilistic) | ~12 seconds | ~400ms |
Data Availability Layer | Ethereum L1 | Solana Validators |
Sequencer/Proposer Centralization Risk | Medium (typically single sequencer) | Low (decentralized leader rotation) |
EVM Compatibility | ||
Programming Model | Modular (Execution + Settlement + DA) | Monolithic (Integrated Stack) |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURAL TRADE-OFFS
Ethereum Rollups vs Solana: Stack Dependencies
Choosing between a modular rollup stack and a monolithic chain defines your team's operational scope, cost structure, and long-term flexibility. Here are the key technical differentiators.
04
Solana: Native Integration & Cost
Atomic Composability: All protocols and assets exist in a single global state, enabling seamless, atomic interactions (e.g., lending, swapping, staking in one tx) without cross-chain bridges.
Predictable, Ultra-Low Cost: Fee markets are per transaction, not per byte. High throughput keeps costs consistently microscopic, ideal for micro-transactions and social/gaming apps.
Trade-off: Less sovereignty. You cannot change core parameters (block time, fee model, VM). Innovation depends on Solana core client (Agave) upgrades and faces ecosystem-wide downtime risk from single client bugs.
< $0.001
Avg. Fee
400ms
Block Time
pros-cons-b
Ethereum Rollups vs Solana
Solana: Pros and Cons
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for CTOs choosing a base layer.
01
Solana's Key Strength: Unified Performance
Single-state architecture: All apps run on a single, high-throughput chain (65K+ TPS theoretical). This eliminates cross-rollup fragmentation, simplifying development for high-frequency applications like HFT DEXs (e.g., Jupiter) and real-time gaming.
65K+ TPS
Theoretical Peak
~400ms
Block Time
02
Solana's Key Strength: Predictable Cost Structure
Native fee market: Transaction fees are paid in SOL and are consistently low ($0.001-$0.01 for simple swaps). Unlike Ethereum L1, there are no gas token abstractions or priority fee auctions, making cost forecasting simpler for product managers.
$0.001-$0.01
Typical Swap Cost
03
Solana's Key Weakness: Centralization & Resilience
Validator concentration: High hardware requirements (>= 256GB RAM) lead to fewer, more centralized validators (~1,500 vs Ethereum's ~1M validators). This creates a higher systemic risk from client diversity issues, as seen in past network halts.
04
Solana's Key Weakness: Protocol-Limited Composability
No native sharding/rollups: Scaling is monolithic, relying on raw hardware improvements. This contrasts with Ethereum's modular roadmap (Danksharding, EigenDA). Long-term, Solana's scaling may hit physical limits before modular stacks.
05
Ethereum Rollups' Key Strength: Modular Security
Inherited Ethereum security: Rollups (Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) batch transactions to Ethereum L1, leveraging its $100B+ staked economic security. This is critical for DeFi protocols managing >$1B in TVL (e.g., Aave, Uniswap V3) where settlement guarantees are paramount.
$100B+
ETH Securing L1
06
Ethereum Rollups' Key Weakness: Fragmented Liquidity & UX
Multi-chain ecosystem: Users and assets are split across Arbitrum, Base, zkSync, etc., requiring bridges and causing liquidity fragmentation. Native cross-rollup composability is complex, hindering developer experience compared to Solana's single global state.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Ethereum Rollups for DeFi
Verdict: The established, secure choice for high-value, complex applications. Strengths:
- Battle-Tested Security: Inherits Ethereum's security, crucial for protocols like Aave, Uniswap V3, and Compound managing billions in TVL.
- Composability & Standards: Seamless integration with the vast Ethereum ecosystem (ERC-20, ERC-4626) and existing tooling (Hardhat, Foundry).
- Proven Economic Security: Finality backed by Ethereum's L1, minimizing settlement risk for cross-chain bridges and oracles like Chainlink. Trade-off: Higher baseline fees than Solana, though Arbitrum and Optimism have significantly reduced costs.
Solana for DeFi
Verdict: The high-throughput, low-latency engine for high-frequency, fee-sensitive applications. Strengths:
- Ultra-Low Fees & High TPS: Sub-cent transaction fees and 2,000+ TPS enable novel micro-transactions and high-frequency strategies seen on Jupiter, Raydium, and MarginFi.
- Atomic Composability: Single global state allows complex, multi-protocol interactions within a single transaction, reducing MEV and failed tx risk.
- Parallel Execution: Sealevel runtime processes non-conflicting transactions simultaneously, ideal for order-book DEXs like Phoenix. Trade-off: Relies on a more centralized validator set for speed, presenting a different security model than Ethereum's decentralized proof-of-stake.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Ethereum's rollup-centric future and Solana's monolithic design is a foundational architectural decision with long-term implications for your protocol.
Ethereum Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) excel at providing security and ecosystem leverage because they inherit Ethereum's battle-tested consensus and massive, composable liquidity. For example, the combined Total Value Locked (TVL) of major L2s exceeds $40B, dwarfing Solana's ~$4B, offering immediate access to DeFi primitives like Aave and Uniswap V3. This stack prioritizes modularity, allowing you to choose your execution environment (e.g., a ZK-rollup for privacy, an Optimistic rollup for EVM compatibility) while relying on Ethereum's unparalleled settlement guarantees.
Solana takes a different approach by optimizing for unified, low-latency performance through a monolithic architecture. This results in a trade-off: you gain exceptional throughput (often cited at 2,000-3,000 TPS for real-user transactions) and sub-second finality, but you accept a single, co-dependent software stack (the Solana client) and historical sensitivity to network congestion during peak demand. Its strength lies in integrated scalability, where applications like Helium and Tensor benefit from fast, cheap native-state interactions without cross-chain bridges.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum security, deep liquidity, and a future-proof modular strategy, choose the Ethereum rollup stack. This is ideal for high-value DeFi, institutional assets, and protocols where Ethereum's brand and decentralization are non-negotiable. If you prioritize raw performance, atomic composability at scale, and a streamlined developer experience for high-frequency use cases (e.g., centralized exchange-like DEXs, real-time gaming, high-volume NFTs), choose Solana. Your choice ultimately hinges on whether you value Ethereum's robust, shared security model or Solana's optimized, singular performance lane.
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