Optimistic Rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) excel at providing low, stable transaction fees today by leveraging Ethereum's security with minimal on-chain computation. Their primary cost is the data availability fee for posting transaction data to Ethereum L1. For example, during periods of low network congestion, fees on Arbitrum One can be 80-90% lower than Ethereum mainnet. This model offers immediate economic relief for applications like DeFi (Uniswap, Aave) and social dApps that prioritize user experience and cost certainty in the short term.
LABS
Comparisons
Optimistic vs ZK Rollups: Long-Term Fee Trends
A data-driven analysis comparing the fundamental cost structures of Optimistic and Zero-Knowledge Rollups. We break down short-term fees, long-term scaling trajectories, and the economic trade-offs for CTOs managing high-volume applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Fee Landscape of Layer 2 Scaling
A data-driven comparison of how Optimistic and ZK Rollups approach transaction costs, revealing a fundamental trade-off between immediate savings and long-term predictability.
ZK Rollups (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet, Polygon zkEVM) take a different approach by using cryptographic validity proofs. This requires more expensive off-chain computation to generate proofs, but results in significantly cheaper and faster finality when settling batches on L1. The key trade-off is fee volatility: while ZK proofs compress data more efficiently long-term, proving costs can fluctuate with compute resource prices. However, innovations like STARKs and recursive proofs are driving down these costs, making ZK Rollups increasingly competitive for high-throughput applications like gaming and payments.
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate, predictable low fees and maximum EVM compatibility for a mainstream user base, choose an Optimistic Rollup. If you prioritize the most aggressive long-term fee reduction, instant finality, and are building a novel, high-volume application, a ZK Rollup is the forward-looking choice. The fee gap is closing, but the architectural decisions today will define your cost structure for years.
tldr-summary
Optimistic vs ZK Rollups: Long-Term Fee Trends
TL;DR: Core Fee Differentiators
The primary cost drivers for each rollup type diverge significantly, shaping their long-term economic viability for different applications.
01
Optimistic Rollups: Lower Fixed Overhead
Lower computational cost per transaction: No expensive ZK-proof generation. This results in a lower baseline cost for simple transfers and swaps. This matters for general-purpose dApps and high-frequency micro-transactions where absolute minimum cost is critical, even if finality is delayed.
02
Optimistic Rollups: Costly Security Guarantees
High cost for fast finality: Users or protocols paying for fraud proof challenges or using bridges with 7-day withdrawal delays incur significant liquidity opportunity costs. This matters for CEX arbitrage, high-value NFT settlements, or institutional DeFi where capital efficiency is paramount.
03
ZK Rollups: Predictable, Verifiable Cost
Fee includes instant finality: The cost of ZK-proof generation is bundled into the transaction fee, providing L1-grade security within minutes. This matters for exchanges, payment systems, and gaming where user experience cannot tolerate multi-day withdrawal delays.
04
ZK Rollups: Hardware-Dependent Scaling
Proof generation is the bottleneck: Fees are tied to the cost and efficiency of specialized provers (GPUs/ASICs). Long-term fee reduction depends on ZK hardware innovation and proof aggregation (e.g., Polygon zkEVM's Boojum, zkSync's GPU prover). This matters for protocols planning 5+ year horizons who are betting on Moore's Law for ZK.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Optimistic vs ZK Rollups: Fee Structure & Cost Driver Comparison
Direct comparison of long-term cost drivers and fee structures for Optimistic (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) and ZK Rollups (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet).
| Cost Driver / Metric | Optimistic Rollups | ZK Rollups |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Fee (L2) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Primary Cost Driver | L1 Data Availability + Fraud Proof Window | L1 Data Availability + ZK Proof Generation |
Time to Finality (L1) | ~7 days (Challenge Period) | ~10 minutes (Proof Verification) |
Withdrawal Time to L1 | ~7 days (Standard) | ~10 minutes (Fast) |
Cost Trend with Adoption | Scales with L1 calldata costs | Scales with L1 calldata + proof compression gains |
Native Token for Fees | ||
Trust Assumption | 1-of-N honest validator | Cryptographic (ZK validity proof) |
pros-cons-a
COST PROS AND CONS
Optimistic vs ZK Rollups: Long-Term Fee Trends
A data-driven breakdown of how Optimistic (Arbitrum, Optimism) and ZK (zkSync Era, Starknet) rollups differ in cost structure and long-term fee trajectory.
01
Optimistic Rollups: Lower Fixed Costs Today
Proven, cheaper compute: Optimistic proofs (fraud proofs) are computationally simpler than ZK proofs, leading to lower fixed overhead per transaction. This currently translates to lower average fees for common operations like token swaps on Arbitrum One. This matters for high-volume, cost-sensitive DApps where current user acquisition is the priority.
$0.10 - $0.50
Avg. DEX Swap Cost
02
Optimistic Rollups: The 7-Day Withdrawal Delay
Capital efficiency tax: The core security model requires a 1-week challenge period for L1 withdrawals, locking user funds. While bridges like Across and Hop Protocol mitigate this, they add complexity and fees. This is a critical con for CEX arbitrage, high-frequency traders, and protocols requiring fast finality for cross-chain composability.
7 Days
Standard Withdrawal Delay
03
ZK Rollups: Predictable, Falling Fee Curve
Hardware-driven deflation: ZK proof generation cost is dominated by hardware (GPU/ASIC) efficiency, which follows Moore's Law-like improvements. Projects like Starknet's recursive proofs and zkSync's Boojum upgrade demonstrate a clear path to sub-cent transactions. This matters for protocols building for a 5-year horizon who prioritize long-term cost predictability.
10-100x
Proof Cost Reduction (Est. 5 yrs)
04
ZK Rollups: Higher Fixed Costs & Volatility
Prover cost barrier: Generating Validity Proofs is computationally intensive, creating a higher base cost floor. During network congestion, proving queue backlogs can cause fee spikes. This is a con for mainstream applications with highly variable, low-margin transactions that cannot absorb these base costs or volatility.
$0.50 - $2.00+
Current Proving Cost Floor
pros-cons-b
Optimistic vs ZK Rollups: Long-Term Fee Trends
ZK Rollups: Cost Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of long-term fee structures and economic trade-offs between Optimistic (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) and ZK Rollups (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet).
01
Optimistic Rollup: Lower Fixed Costs
Pro: Minimal proof generation overhead. No expensive ZK-SNARK/STARK proofs are computed for every batch, leading to lower baseline costs for sequencers. This matters for high-volume, low-value transactions where absolute cost efficiency is paramount. Con: Delayed finality costs. The 7-day challenge period requires capital to be locked (e.g., in bridges like Arbitrum's), creating an implicit cost for users and liquidity providers seeking immediate finality.
02
ZK Rollup: Predictable Settlement Cost
Pro: Instant finality, no capital lockup. Validity proofs provide Ethereum-level security in minutes, not days, eliminating the liquidity cost of challenge periods. This matters for exchanges, institutional settlement, and cross-chain bridges where time is capital. Con: High prover computation cost. Generating ZK proofs (especially for general-purpose VMs) is computationally intensive, creating a higher fixed cost per batch that must be amortized across transactions.
03
Optimistic: Cost Vulnerable to Congestion
Pro: Fees scale directly with L1 gas prices. During low Ethereum congestion, fees can be extremely competitive. Con: Fee spikes during L1 disputes. If a fraud proof is submitted (e.g., on Optimism), the batch settlement cost spikes dramatically as it executes a full fraud proof verification on-chain. This creates unpredictable long-term fee volatility for protocols that may trigger disputes.
04
ZK: Economics of Scale & Proof Recursion
Pro: Massive economies of scale. As transaction volume per batch increases, the high fixed proof cost is divided across more users, driving marginal cost per tx toward zero. Technologies like proof recursion (Starknet's SHARP) aggregate proofs for further cost reduction. This matters for mass adoption scenarios and hyper-scalable dApps. Con: Requires sustained high throughput to achieve these low costs; low-activity periods can result in higher per-tx fees.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: A Decision Framework by Use Case
Optimistic Rollups for DeFi
Verdict: The current incumbent for high-value, complex applications. Strengths: Arbitrum and Optimism dominate with massive TVL (billions), deep liquidity, and a mature ecosystem of battle-tested protocols like GMX, Uniswap, and Aave. The EVM-equivalent environment (e.g., Arbitrum Nitro) allows for easy deployment with minimal code changes. The 7-day fraud proof window is a manageable trade-off for institutional-grade DeFi where capital efficiency and security are paramount.
ZK Rollups for DeFi
Verdict: The emerging challenger for low-latency, high-frequency operations. Strengths: zkSync Era, StarkNet, and Polygon zkEVM offer near-instant finality (minutes vs. days), which is critical for arbitrage, liquidations, and perps trading. Their cryptographic security reduces capital lock-up periods. While ecosystem size lags, native account abstraction (e.g., StarkNet) enables superior UX. Long-term, their inherently lower data costs promise more sustainable fee reduction as adoption grows.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven assessment of long-term fee trajectories for Optimistic and ZK Rollups, guiding strategic infrastructure selection.
Optimistic Rollups (like Arbitrum One and OP Mainnet) currently excel at minimizing transaction costs for general-purpose applications due to their simpler, proven cryptography. Their primary cost is the fixed, one-week delay for finality, which allows for extremely low L2 gas fees. For example, Arbitrum's average transaction fee has consistently remained under $0.10, making it the dominant choice for DeFi protocols like GMX and Uniswap, which collectively command billions in TVL.
ZK Rollups (like zkSync Era and Starknet) take a fundamentally different approach by using computationally intensive zero-knowledge proofs for instant finality. This results in a higher base cost per transaction but unlocks superior long-term scalability and privacy potential. The trade-off is evident in current fee structures, where ZK Rollup transactions can be 2-3x more expensive than Optimistic ones during peak demand, though costs are falling rapidly with hardware acceleration and proof aggregation.
The key long-term trend hinges on proof recursion and data compression. ZK Rollups are on a steeper cost-reduction curve, with innovations like zkPorter and Volition models promising sub-cent fees by compressing data availability. Optimistic Rollups are optimizing via fraud proof compression and multi-round challenges, but their cost floor is ultimately tied to Ethereum's calldata costs.
The strategic decision is clear: Choose Optimistic Rollups if your immediate priority is minimizing user fees today for a broad, EVM-compatible application with high transaction volume. Choose ZK Rollups if you prioritize future-proof scalability, instant finality for exchanges/payments, or privacy features, and can accept a marginally higher cost today for a steeper long-term fee decline trajectory.
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