Polygon CDK excels at providing predictable, ultra-low base transaction costs by leveraging zkEVM technology and a dedicated data availability (DA) layer, typically Celestia or Avail. This architecture decouples execution costs from Ethereum L1 gas volatility, allowing for stable, sub-cent fees. For example, a simple token transfer on a CDK chain can cost under $0.001, making it ideal for high-volume, low-value micro-transactions in gaming or social dApps.
LABS
Comparisons
Polygon CDK vs Arbitrum One: Gas Costs
A technical analysis comparing the gas cost models of Polygon's appchain framework and Arbitrum's general-purpose rollup, focusing on fee predictability, L1 settlement costs, and optimal use cases for CTOs and architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Fundamental Cost Trade-Off
A direct comparison of how Polygon CDK and Arbitrum One architect their fee structures, revealing a core trade-off between predictable base costs and dynamic, market-driven efficiency.
Arbitrum One takes a different approach by anchoring its security and data directly to Ethereum, using optimistic rollup technology. This results in fees that are a direct function of Ethereum L1 calldata costs, creating a trade-off: while typically 90-95% cheaper than Ethereum mainnet, its fees are dynamic and can spike during network congestion. However, this integration provides unparalleled security and composability with the broader Ethereum ecosystem, a critical factor for DeFi protocols like GMX and Radiant Capital that prioritize asset safety.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute, predictable cost minimization for a specific application's user experience, choose Polygon CDK. If you prioritize maximizing security guarantees and deep liquidity integration with Ethereum, accepting variable but still low fees, choose Arbitrum One.
tldr-summary
Polygon CDK vs Arbitrum One: Gas Costs
TL;DR: Key Cost Differentiators
A side-by-side breakdown of the fundamental economic models and fee structures. The choice often boils down to predictable, low fixed costs versus dynamic, market-driven fees.
01
Polygon CDK: Ultra-Low Fixed Gas
Specific advantage: Native gas token is MATIC or a custom token, with fees often <$0.01 for simple swaps. This is achieved via a single, efficient zkEVM sequencer and minimal L1 data posting costs.
This matters for high-frequency micro-transactions (e.g., gaming, social tipping) and applications requiring absolute cost predictability, as fees are not subject to L1 congestion auctions.
02
Polygon CDK: Cost Control for Appchains
Specific advantage: Deployers have sovereign control over their chain's gas pricing and fee market. They can subsidize fees or set them to zero for users.
This matters for brands and enterprises (e.g., Starbucks Odyssey, Disney) needing a customized user experience and for dApps that want to abstract gas costs entirely from their end-users.
03
Arbitrum One: ETH-Denominated, L1-Linked Fees
Specific advantage: Gas is paid in ETH, with fees composed of L2 execution + L1 data posting costs. Current averages are ~$0.10-$0.30 for swaps, but can spike with Ethereum congestion.
This matters for DeFi protocols and users who prefer the liquidity and network effects of Ethereum's native currency and need strong, battle-tested economic security derived from Ethereum.
04
Arbitrum One: Dynamic Fee Market & Priority Gas
Specific advantage: Incorporates a priority fee mechanism similar to Ethereum, allowing users to pay more for faster inclusion during high demand.
This matters for arbitrageurs, liquidators, and high-value traders on major DEXs like Uniswap and GMX, where transaction ordering is critical and the cost of delay can exceed the extra gas fee.
POLYGON CDK VS. ARBITRUM ONE
Gas Cost Model Comparison
Direct comparison of transaction cost structures and efficiency for L2 scaling solutions.
| Metric | Polygon CDK | Arbitrum One |
|---|---|---|
Avg. L2 Tx Cost (ETH Transfer) | < $0.001 | $0.10 - $0.30 |
Gas Fee Model | Unified L2 Fee | L2 Gas + L1 Data Fee |
L1 Data Posting Cost | Shared via AggLayer | Paid per batch |
Fee Token Flexibility | Native gas token | ETH only |
Gas Token Bridging Required | ||
Provenance | zkEVM Validium | Optimistic Rollup |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS ANALYSIS
Polygon CDK vs Arbitrum One: Gas Costs
A data-driven comparison of gas economics for CTOs and architects. Polygon CDK offers predictable costs, while Arbitrum One provides proven, dynamic market pricing.
01
Polygon CDK Pro: Predictable, Low Fixed Costs
ZK-Proof Batching: Transaction costs are dominated by a single, amortized proof posted to Ethereum. This creates a predictable fee floor independent of on-chain congestion. Ideal for high-frequency micro-transactions in gaming or social apps where cost stability is critical.
02
Polygon CDK Con: Limited Fee Token Flexibility
Native Gas Token Dependency: Most CDK chains use their native token for gas (e.g., the chain's own token or MATIC). This adds complexity for users who must acquire a new token, unlike paying with ETH. A trade-off for the sovereignty and fee revenue model of an app-chain.
03
Arbitrum One Pro: Optimistic Rollup Efficiency
Mature Cost Scaling: As the largest L2 by TVL and activity, Arbitrum One benefits from massive economies of scale in data compression and calldata posting. Users pay dynamic fees based on real-time L1 gas prices and L2 execution, often resulting in sub-$0.01 swaps during normal load.
04
Arbitrum One Con: Ethereum Gas Price Volatility
Direct L1 Calldata Link: Transaction fees are directly tied to Ethereum base layer gas prices. During network congestion events (e.g., NFT mints, airdrops), fees can spike unpredictably. This is a risk for applications requiring strict, consistent operating cost forecasts.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS ANALYSIS
Polygon CDK vs Arbitrum One: Gas Costs
A data-driven comparison of gas economics for protocol architects choosing a rollup stack. Frame decisions around predictability, scalability, and long-term cost control.
01
Polygon CDK Pro: Predictable, Low Base Costs
ZK-rollup efficiency: Inherits cryptographic finality from Ethereum, minimizing data posting costs. Base fees are consistently low and predictable, not subject to L1 congestion spikes.
This matters for high-frequency dApps (like perpetual DEXs or gaming) where user experience depends on stable, sub-cent transaction costs, as seen on chains like Immutable zkEVM and Astar zkEVM.
02
Polygon CDK Pro: Sovereign Gas Token Strategy
Flexible fee monetization: Chains can deploy with a native gas token (e.g., USDC, MATIC) instead of ETH. This eliminates bridge friction for users and allows the chain to capture value from its own gas fees.
This matters for app-chains and branded ecosystems seeking economic sovereignty and simplified user onboarding, as implemented by Manta Network and Aevo.
03
Arbitrum One Pro: Proven, Optimistic Cost Scaling
Massive scale economies: As the largest L2 by TVL and activity, Arbitrum One benefits from unparalleled batch compression, distributing fixed L1 data costs across millions of transactions. Average transaction fees are often under $0.10.
This matters for general-purpose DeFi protocols (like GMX, Uniswap) where deep liquidity and network effects outweigh micro-optimizations, ensuring cheap access for a massive existing user base.
04
Arbitrum One Pro: Dynamic Fee Market & Priority Tips
Ethereum-aligned economics: Uses a EIP-1559-style fee market with base fee + priority tip (in ETH). This provides users with explicit control over transaction speed during periods of high demand.
This matters for arbitrage bots and time-sensitive settlements where paying a higher tip for immediate inclusion is a calculable business cost, a model proven on Ethereum mainnet.
05
Polygon CDK Con: Early-Stage Cost Volatility Risk
New chain overhead: A fresh CDK chain starts with low traffic, meaning fixed L1 data posting costs are spread across fewer transactions, leading to higher per-tx fees until scale is achieved. Cost predictability depends on the chain's own growth.
This matters for launching a new ecosystem; architects must model user acquisition costs and may need initial subsidies to bootstrap usage, unlike Arbitrum's established economy.
06
Arbitrum One Con: L1 Dependency & Congestion Spillover
Vulnerable to Ethereum peaks: While batched, final transaction costs are still directly tied to Ethereum base layer gas prices. During major NFT mints or network congestion events, L2 fees can spike 5-10x.
This matters for budget-conscious applications requiring absolute, long-term fee guarantees. Protocols cannot fully insulate users from Ethereum's volatile fee market, a trade-off for its security.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Polygon CDK for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for cost-predictable, high-throughput DeFi primitives. Strengths: ZK-rollup gas fees are highly predictable and low, averaging $0.01-$0.05 per swap, ideal for frequent user interactions. Native EVM-equivalence ensures easy porting of Solidity contracts from Aave, Uniswap V3, and Compound. The shared ZK bridge to Ethereum and other CDK chains enables interoperable liquidity without fragmented bridging. Data Availability (DA) choices (Ethereum, Celestia, Avail) let you optimize for cost vs. security. Considerations: Ecosystem is newer; you may need to bootstrap your own liquidity initially.
Arbitrum One for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for immediate access to the deepest liquidity and mature tooling. Strengths: Dominant TVL ($18B+) with established protocols like GMX, Camelot, and Radiant. Optimistic rollup model is battle-tested for security. Nitro stack provides high throughput (~7k TPS theoretical). Rich developer experience with tools like Hardhat, The Graph, and Tenderly fully supported. Considerations: Gas fees, while low, are variable and higher than ZK-rollups during congestion. Withdrawal to Ethereum L1 has a 7-day challenge period.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Polygon CDK and Arbitrum One for gas costs is a strategic decision between predictable, low-cost sovereignty and leveraging a mature, high-liquidity ecosystem.
Polygon CDK excels at providing predictable, ultra-low transaction fees by enabling teams to launch their own ZK-powered L2 or L3 chains. This sovereignty allows developers to set their own gas token (e.g., stablecoins) and fee models, decoupling costs from ETH price volatility. For example, a gaming dApp on a CDK chain can achieve sub-cent transaction fees, a critical requirement for high-frequency micro-transactions, while maintaining Ethereum-level security via ZK proofs.
Arbitrum One takes a different approach by operating as a single, dominant L2 rollup, which results in higher but still significantly reduced fees compared to Ethereum L1. Its strength lies in its massive, shared liquidity and network effects, with a TVL consistently over $15B. The trade-off is that gas costs, while ~90% cheaper than Ethereum, are subject to shared network demand and are paid in ETH, making them less predictable than a dedicated CDK chain's fixed fee structure.
The key trade-off: If your priority is absolute cost control, fee predictability, and application-specific customization (e.g., for gaming, social, or high-TPS DeFi), choose Polygon CDK. If you prioritize immediate access to deep liquidity, a vast existing user base, and the robust security of the most battle-tested Optimistic Rollup, choose Arbitrum One. Your decision hinges on whether you value building a tailored environment or plugging into the established market leader.
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