Monolithic Layer 1s like Solana and Avalanche offer a predictable environment because they process transactions on a single, unified layer. This results in consistent, low-latency execution where transaction costs are primarily driven by network-wide demand, not external dependencies. For example, Solana's average transaction fee of $0.00025 remains stable during normal loads, providing clear cost forecasting for applications like high-frequency DEXs (e.g., Jupiter) and NFT mints.
LABS
Comparisons
Ethereum Rollups vs Monolithic L1s: Load Variance
A technical analysis comparing how Ethereum rollups and monolithic Layer 1 blockchains handle network load variance, focusing on performance predictability, cost stability, and architectural trade-offs for enterprise decision-makers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Predictability Problem
A foundational look at how architectural choices between rollups and monolithic chains create fundamentally different predictability profiles for application performance and cost.
Ethereum Rollups (Optimism, Arbitrum, zkSync) introduce a layer of variance as they derive security from Ethereum L1 but batch transactions. This creates a dual-fee model: low-cost execution on the rollup, plus variable L1 data posting costs. During Ethereum network congestion, the cost to finalize a batch can spike, causing periodic, unpredictable fee surges for end-users, as seen in events like major NFT drops on Arbitrum Nova.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute cost and latency predictability for user-facing applications, a performant monolithic L1 is superior. If you prioritize maximizing security and ecosystem composability above all, and can architect your dApp to handle occasional fee variance, an Ethereum rollup is the strategic choice.
tldr-summary
Ethereum Rollups vs. Monolithic L1s
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of architectural trade-offs for handling variable transaction loads.
01
Rollups: Inherited Security
Leverage Ethereum's consensus: Transactions are secured by the Ethereum mainnet's ~$50B+ validator stake. This matters for DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave, Uniswap) and high-value assets where security is non-negotiable.
$50B+
ETH Staked
02
Rollups: Predictable Cost Scaling
Costs scale with Ethereum L1 gas fees: During high load, fees rise, but execution is guaranteed. This matters for enterprise applications that require transaction finality and can budget for variable costs.
03
Monolithic L1s: Independent Throughput
No shared data layer: Chains like Solana and Avalanche process transactions on their own hardware, achieving 2k-10k+ TPS. This matters for high-frequency applications like NFT minting or gaming where low, predictable latency is critical.
2k-10k+
Peak TPS
04
Monolithic L1s: Sovereign Load Management
Full control over state and consensus: The chain's validators manage congestion directly (e.g., Solana's fee markets, Avalanche subnets). This matters for protocols needing deterministic performance, like decentralized order books (e.g., DEXs on Solana).
ETHEREUM ROLLUPS VS MONOLITHIC L1S
Head-to-Head: Load Variance Comparison
Direct comparison of performance and economic stability under fluctuating network demand.
| Metric | Ethereum Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Monolithic L1s (e.g., Solana, Sui) |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Sustained) | ~4,000 | ~65,000 |
Cost Variance (Low vs High Load) | 0.5x to 50x base cost | 1x to 5x base cost |
Base Transaction Cost | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.001 |
Time to Finality | ~12 minutes | ~400ms - 2 seconds |
Sovereignty During Congestion | ||
Primary Scaling Constraint | Ethereum L1 Data Availability | Node Hardware / Bandwidth |
Ethereum Rollups vs Monolithic L1s: Load Variance
Performance & Cost Under Load
Direct comparison of scalability and cost efficiency under network stress.
| Metric | Ethereum Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) | Monolithic L1s (e.g., Solana, Sui) |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Sustained) | 4,000 - 40,000 | 65,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost (Peak Load) | $0.10 - $2.00 | < $0.001 |
Time to Finality (Avg.) | ~12 sec - 1 min | ~400ms - 2 sec |
Cost Determinism Under Load | ||
Throughput Bottleneck | Ethereum L1 Data Availability | Node Hardware |
Primary Scaling Mechanism | Off-chain Execution + L1 Settlement | Parallel Execution |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Ethereum Rollups vs Monolithic L1s: Load Variance
How each architecture handles unpredictable traffic spikes and sustained high demand.
01
Rollup Pro: Predictable, Isolated Costs
Sequencer fee market isolation: High activity on one rollup (e.g., an NFT mint on Optimism) does not directly impact fees on others (e.g., a DEX on Arbitrum). This provides cost certainty for applications during network-wide volatility.
- Example: Base's daily transactions can surge 300% without affecting ZkSync Era's base fee.
- This matters for protocols requiring stable operating costs and predictable user experience, like subscription services or enterprise payment rails.
02
Rollup Pro: Elastic Throughput Scaling
Horizontal scaling potential: Throughput (TPS) can be increased by deploying new, interoperable rollups (via shared bridges like EigenLayer, AltLayer). This is a more modular response to load than upgrading a monolithic core.
- Metric: A new Arbitrum Orbit chain can be spun up in hours, adding ~4,500 TPS capacity.
- This matters for gaming studios launching a new title or financial institutions needing a dedicated, high-throughput environment for peak events.
03
Monolithic L1 Pro: Unified Liquidity & Security
No fragmentation risk: All activity and value (TVL) reside in a single state, ensuring deep, shared liquidity and atomic composability. There is no bridging delay or risk between applications.
- Metric: Solana's centralized liquidity enables ~2,000 swaps/sec across all DEXs (e.g., Raydium, Orca) during memecoin manias.
- This matters for high-frequency trading, arbitrage bots, and complex DeFi protocols where cross-application latency is critical.
04
Monolithic L1 Pro: Simpler Operational Overhead
No cross-chain infrastructure: Developers and users interact with one network, one set of RPC endpoints, and one block explorer. There's no need to manage bridges, prove fraud, or wait for challenge periods.
- Example: A user on Sui can interact with any app in <1 second finality without worrying about L1 settlement latency.
- This matters for consumer apps targeting mainstream adoption where simplicity and instant finality are paramount.
05
Rollup Con: L1 Settlement Bottleneck
Inherited base-layer constraints: Final transaction throughput and cost are ultimately bounded by Ethereum's capacity (~15-45 TPS for data, ~85 TPS for blobs post-EIP-4844). During Ethereum congestion, all rollups experience increased data posting costs and longer finality.
- Metric: A sustained gas price of 100+ gwei on Ethereum can increase rollup batch submission costs by 10x, impacting profitability.
- This matters for applications with ultra-high-volume, low-margin transactions that cannot absorb variable L1 data costs.
06
Monolithic L1 Con: Congestion Cascade Risk
Single-resource contention: A popular NFT mint or token launch can congest the entire network, causing transaction failures and fee spikes for all other applications (e.g., Solana's repeated 2024 outages).
- Metric: During peak load, Solana's priority fees can spike from $0.001 to over $1 per transaction, a 1000x increase.
- This matters for ecosystems where reliability for core financial infrastructure (stablecoins, lending) cannot be compromised by unrelated speculative activity.
pros-cons-b
Ethereum Rollups vs Monolithic L1s
Monolithic L1s: Pros and Cons for Load Variance
Key strengths and trade-offs for handling unpredictable transaction volume spikes.
01
Monolithic L1s: Predictable Performance
Guaranteed resource access: The entire chain's capacity (e.g., Solana's 50k TPS, Sui's parallel execution) is available to all apps. This provides deterministic performance during load spikes, crucial for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., Drift Protocol) and real-time gaming where latency is non-negotiable.
02
Monolithic L1s: Simpler State Management
Unified state and composability: All smart contracts and assets exist in a single, atomic state. This eliminates cross-chain or cross-rollup bridging delays, enabling seamless composability for complex DeFi legos (e.g., margin trading on Aave into a Perpetual on dYdX) without fragmentation risk.
03
Ethereum Rollups: Isolated Congestion
Contained failure domains: A load spike on one app (e.g., an NFT mint on Zora) or rollup (Arbitrum) does not degrade performance on others (e.g., Optimism). This protects critical operations like stablecoin settlements (USDC on Base) from unrelated network events.
04
Ethereum Rollups: Elastic, Modular Scaling
Independent capacity scaling: Each rollup can optimize its execution environment (e.g., zkSync's ZK Stack, Starknet's Cairo VM) and data availability layer (Ethereum, Celestia, EigenDA). This allows app-specific chains (e.g., dYdX Chain) to provision exact resources needed, avoiding monolithic chain bloat.
05
Monolithic L1s: Shared Congestion Risk
Noisy neighbor problem: A single viral app can consume global block space, spiking fees and latency for all others. This creates unpredictable costs, a major pain point for mass-adoption consumer apps and micro-transactions.
06
Ethereum Rollups: Fragmented Liquidity & UX
Bridging overhead and delays: Moving assets between rollups (Arbitrum ↔ Optimism) introduces 7-day challenge periods for optimistic rollups or ~1-hour delays for ZK rollups, complicating cross-rollup arbitrage and unified treasury management.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Ethereum Rollups for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for high-value, composable applications. Strengths: Unmatched security via Ethereum's consensus, deep liquidity (Arbitrum, Optimism > $2B TVL), and seamless composability with protocols like Aave, Uniswap V3, and Compound. The EVM-equivalent environment (Arbitrum Nitro, OP Stack) minimizes migration friction. Trade-offs: Latency (1-2 hour withdrawal to L1) and transaction costs ($0.10-$1.00) are higher than specialized L1s, but orders of magnitude cheaper than Ethereum L1.
Monolithic L1s for DeFi
Verdict: Viable for isolated, high-throughput applications where cost is paramount. Strengths: Superior throughput (Solana 2k-5k TPS, Sui 10k+ TPS) and sub-second finality enable novel trading experiences (e.g., Drift, Raydium). Fees are often sub-cent. Trade-offs: Security and decentralization are more varied (e.g., Solana's validator count vs. Ethereum's). Composability can be limited by runtime design (e.g., Sui's object model) and bridging to Ethereum assets adds complexity and risk.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Ethereum rollups and monolithic L1s for load variance hinges on your application's tolerance for shared security versus independent performance.
Ethereum Rollups (like Arbitrum, Optimism, zkSync) excel at predictable, low-cost scaling by inheriting Ethereum's robust security and decentralization. For example, during periods of high network-wide demand, rollup fees remain orders of magnitude lower than L1 gas fees, with Arbitrum One averaging ~$0.10 per transaction versus Ethereum's $10+ during peaks. This makes them ideal for applications like DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave) and NFT marketplaces that require strong settlement guarantees and composability within the Ethereum ecosystem.
Monolithic L1s (like Solana, Avalanche, Sui) take a different approach by architecting a single, high-throughput chain. This results in superior raw performance and isolated load variance—Solana can sustain 2-3k TPS with sub-second finality under normal conditions. However, the trade-off is a higher risk of network-wide congestion or instability during extreme events, as seen in past Solana outages, because the entire system's performance is not buffered by a separate settlement layer.
The key trade-off: If your priority is security, ecosystem depth, and predictable economic costs for high-value transactions, choose an Ethereum rollup. If you prioritize maximizing throughput, latency, and having full control over your chain's performance profile for consumer-scale applications (e.g., high-frequency trading, gaming), choose a monolithic L1. For CTOs, the decision maps directly to risk appetite: rollups offer a managed, shared-risk environment, while monolithic chains provide higher performance autonomy with greater operational responsibility.
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