Arbitrum excels at delivering consistently high, practical throughput for mainstream DeFi and NFT applications by leveraging Optimistic Rollup technology. Its proven mainnet stability and massive ecosystem, with over $2.5B in TVL, allow it to handle bursts of activity on protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3. While its theoretical TPS can reach 40,000+, its sustained real-world performance is often gated by Ethereum's data availability costs, making it a battle-tested workhorse for established dApps.
LABS
Comparisons
Arbitrum vs zkSync Era: TPS
A technical comparison of throughput performance between the leading Optimistic Rollup (Arbitrum One) and ZK Rollup (zkSync Era). Analyzes peak TPS, real-world capacity, finality trade-offs, and cost implications for protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Throughput Imperative
A data-driven breakdown of how Arbitrum and zkSync Era approach scaling Ethereum, focusing on the critical metric of transactions per second (TPS).
zkSync Era takes a fundamentally different approach by using Zero-Knowledge (ZK) Rollups. This cryptographic proof system enables faster finality (minutes vs. a week for fraud proofs) and, in theory, higher ultimate scalability. Its use of zkEVM for native Ethereum compatibility and a focus on data compression via zkPorter for future off-chain data availability positions it for raw throughput. However, as a newer mainnet, its current ecosystem and proven stress-test resilience are still maturing compared to Arbitrum's.
The key trade-off: If your priority is proven stability, deep liquidity, and immediate deployment into a mature ecosystem, choose Arbitrum. If you prioritize technological frontier, faster finality, and are architecting for the highest hypothetical future throughput, choose zkSync Era. For CTOs, the decision hinges on the classic build-vs-buy dilemma: a robust platform today versus a potentially superior infrastructure tomorrow.
tldr-summary
Arbitrum vs zkSync Era: TPS
TL;DR: Key Throughput Differentiators
Throughput isn't just about peak TPS. It's about consistent performance, cost efficiency, and how the underlying technology handles real-world load. Here's how Arbitrum's Optimistic Rollup and zkSync Era's ZK-Rollup architectures create distinct trade-offs.
01
Arbitrum Nitro: Proven High-Throughput
Specific advantage: Sustains ~4,000-7,000 TPS on its AnyTrust-based Nova chain, with mainnet One handling ~40,000 TPS in controlled tests. This is powered by its WASM-based fraud-proving system and multi-threaded sequencer.
This matters for high-frequency DeFi protocols (like GMX, Uniswap) and social/gaming dApps that need predictable, high-capacity throughput without sacrificing Ethereum-level security.
40K+ TPS
Peak (Testnet)
~7K TPS
Sustained (Nova)
02
Arbitrum: Lower Latency for Users
Specific advantage: Instant pre-confirmations from a single, trusted sequencer provide sub-second user experience, with finality to Ethereum L1 in ~1 week (challenge period).
This matters for consumer applications where user experience is critical—exchanges, NFT minting, and real-time interactions feel instantaneous, even before L1 finalization.
< 1 sec
Pre-confirmation
03
zkSync Era: Theoretical Scalability Ceiling
Specific advantage: ZK-proofs enable massive batch compression. While current TPS is similar to Arbitrum (~3,000), its architecture is designed to scale linearly with proof recursion and hardware acceleration, targeting 100,000+ TPS long-term.
This matters for protocols planning for hyper-scalability, where the end-state architecture (ZK-stack, validiums) is a core strategic requirement over immediate peak numbers.
100K+ TPS
Future Target
04
zkSync Era: Faster Finality to L1
Specific advantage: Cryptographic validity proofs provide Ethereum-level security with ~1 hour finality, eliminating the 7-day withdrawal delay of optimistic rollups.
This matters for institutional DeFi, cross-chain bridges, and any application where capital efficiency and guaranteed finality are non-negotiable. Protocols like Yearn and Curve leverage this for faster liquidity movement.
~1 hour
Finality to L1
ARBITRUM VS ZKSYNC ERA
Performance Specifications: TPS & Finality
Direct comparison of throughput, finality, and cost metrics for two leading L2 solutions.
| Metric | Arbitrum One | zkSync Era |
|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS | 40,000 | 2,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Time to Finality (L1) | ~1 week (Dispute Window) | ~1 hour (ZK Validity Proof) |
Transaction Type | Optimistic Rollup | ZK Rollup |
EVM Compatibility | Full EVM Equivalence | EVM-Compatible (Bytecode Level) |
Native Account Abstraction |
ARBITRUM VS ZKSYNC ERA: TPS & COST
Cost Analysis: Throughput vs. Expense
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and ecosystem metrics for two leading L2s.
| Metric | Arbitrum One | zkSync Era |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | 40,000 | 2,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.05 - $0.15 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~1 min | ~15 min |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Dominant Proving System | Optimistic Rollup | ZK-Rollup (zkEVM) |
EVM Compatibility Level | Full EVM Equivalence | Bytecode-Level Compatibility |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS FOR THROUGHPUT
Arbitrum One vs zkSync Era: TPS & Throughput Analysis
A data-driven comparison of transaction processing capabilities. Both are high-throughput L2s, but their architectures lead to different real-world performance and trade-offs.
01
Arbitrum One: Higher Proven Practical TPS
Specific advantage: Consistently handles 40-100+ TPS under load, with peaks over 200 TPS. This is backed by $18B+ TVL and dominant market share in DeFi (GMX, Camelot). This matters for high-frequency DeFi protocols and applications requiring proven, battle-tested network stability under real economic activity.
40-100+ TPS
Practical Throughput
$18B+
TVL (L2 Leader)
03
zkSync Era: Superior Theoretical Peak TPS
Specific advantage: ZK-rollup architecture enables a theoretical peak of 2,000+ TPS due to efficient proof compression. In practice, it currently handles 20-60 TPS. This matters for future-scaling applications betting on long-term ZK tech maturation and for use cases where cryptographic finality is a non-negotiable requirement.
2,000+ TPS
Theoretical Peak
~10 min
L1 Finality
04
zkSync Era: Prover Bottlenecks & Cost Volatility
Specific disadvantage: ZK-proof generation is computationally intensive, creating a potential bottleneck and causing fee volatility during congestion. While cheaper than L1, costs can spike more unpredictably than Arbitrum's. This matters for budget-sensitive dApps that require predictable operational costs and for developers prioritizing consistent user experience over peak throughput potential.
pros-cons-b
Arbitrum vs zkSync Era: TPS
zkSync Era: Pros and Cons for Throughput
A data-driven comparison of throughput characteristics, highlighting the architectural trade-offs between optimistic and ZK-rollup designs.
01
Arbitrum: Higher Practical TPS Today
Current network dominance: Processes ~10-15 TPS consistently, significantly higher than zkSync Era's ~3-5 TPS. This is due to mature Nitro stack and extensive sequencer optimization. This matters for protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3 that require high-frequency trade settlement.
10-15 TPS
Sustained Throughput
$2.5B+
Daily Volume (DEXs)
02
Arbitrum: Lower Cost at High Scale
Economies of scale: With higher activity, L1 settlement costs are amortized across more transactions. For a dApp like Camelot DEX processing 100k swaps/day, the effective cost per transaction is lower than on zkSync Era. This matters for high-volume, fee-sensitive applications.
03
zkSync Era: Superior Theoretical TPS Ceiling
ZK-proof efficiency: Finality is achieved with a single validity proof, not a 7-day challenge window. This allows the sequencer to batch more transactions per L1 commit, with a roadmap to 10,000+ TPS. This matters for future-state applications like fully on-chain gaming (e.g., Influence) or mass adoption.
2,000+ TPS
Testnet Peak
04
zkSync Era: Predictable Finality & Cost
Instant finality for users: Transactions are final in minutes when the proof is submitted to Ethereum, not days. This enables faster cross-chain bridging via LayerZero and zkSync Native Bridge. This matters for exchanges and traders who cannot wait 7 days for fund withdrawals.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Use Case
Arbitrum for DeFi
Verdict: The established, high-liquidity choice for production DeFi. Strengths: Dominant TVL ($2.5B+) and deep liquidity across Aave, GMX, and Uniswap V3. EVM compatibility is near-perfect, minimizing integration risk. The Nitro stack provides robust, battle-tested infrastructure with proven economic security via fraud proofs. Considerations: Sequencer fees are higher than zkSync, and finality is slower (minutes vs. seconds).
zkSync Era for DeFi
Verdict: The cost-efficient, forward-looking platform for new primitives.
Strengths: Significantly lower transaction fees due to ZK-proof compression. Native Account Abstraction (AA) enables gasless transactions and sponsored fees, improving UX. Faster finality (minutes to Ethereum L1). Emerging ecosystem with native DEXs like SyncSwap.
Considerations: Lower TVL (~$700M) means thinner liquidity. Some EVM opcode differences require audit attention (e.g., no native block.number).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on choosing between Arbitrum's proven throughput and zkSync Era's future-proof scalability.
Arbitrum excels at delivering high, consistent throughput for mainstream DeFi and NFT applications because its Optimistic Rollup design has been battle-tested for years on a massive scale. For example, its network consistently processes 40-50 TPS with peaks over 100 TPS, supporting a $2.5B+ TVL ecosystem with protocols like GMX, Uniswap, and Lido. Its mature Nitro stack provides reliable performance for applications where predictable finality and deep liquidity are non-negotiable.
zkSync Era takes a different approach by leveraging ZK-Rollup cryptography, which offers superior long-term scalability potential and native Ethereum-level security. This results in a trade-off: while its current proven TPS is lower (typically 20-30 TPS), its architecture is fundamentally more efficient, with transaction finality in minutes versus the week-long challenge period for Optimistic Rollups. Its focus is on enabling novel use cases like account abstraction and paying gas in any token, attracting projects like SyncSwap and Maverick Protocol.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deploying today on a stable, high-liquidity network with maximal EVM compatibility, choose Arbitrum. Its ecosystem maturity and proven throughput minimize integration risk. If you prioritize future-proof scalability, superior security guarantees, and building next-generation user experiences, choose zkSync Era. Its ZK-tech stack, while still evolving, is the strategic bet for applications where ultimate scalability and innovative crypto-economic models are critical.
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