Optimism excels at delivering consistent, high throughput for mainstream EVM applications because of its pragmatic, Optimistic Rollup design and EVM-equivalent Bedrock architecture. For example, the network has demonstrated sustained capacity of 2,000-4,000 TPS during peak demand, processing transactions for major protocols like Uniswap, Synthetix, and Aave with sub-second finality on L2. Its strength lies in predictable performance and seamless compatibility with the existing Ethereum toolchain (MetaMask, Hardhat, Foundry).
LABS
Comparisons
Optimism vs Starknet: Throughput
A technical comparison of transaction throughput, latency, and finality between Optimism's optimistic rollup and Starknet's ZK-rollup. Analyzes real-world performance, trade-offs, and optimal use cases for CTOs and architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Throughput Imperative for L2 Scaling
A data-driven comparison of Optimism's pragmatic rollup model versus Starknet's ZK-Rollup architecture for high-throughput applications.
Starknet takes a fundamentally different approach by leveraging ZK-STARK proofs for validity. This cryptographic approach allows for theoretically higher computational throughput for complex logic, as seen in its Cairo-native ecosystem with projects like zkLend and Nostra. However, this results in a trade-off of developer familiarity and ecosystem maturity; building on Cairo requires a learning curve, and finality is achieved only after proof generation and verification on Ethereum L1, which can add latency.
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate developer adoption, EVM compatibility, and proven scalability for DeFi and NFTs, choose Optimism. Its Bedrock upgrade provides a robust, predictable environment. If you prioritize long-term scalability for novel, computation-heavy applications (e.g., on-chain gaming, complex AI agents) and are willing to adopt a new stack for maximal cryptographic security, choose Starknet. Its path to volition and recursive proofs points to a higher theoretical ceiling.
tldr-summary
Optimism vs Starknet
TL;DR: Key Throughput Differentiators
Throughput isn't just TPS. It's about cost, finality, and the trade-offs each scaling approach makes. Here's the data-driven breakdown for architects.
01
Optimism: Lower Cost for Simple Transactions
Specific advantage: ~$0.01 average L2 fee for basic transfers (vs. Starknet's ~$0.05). This matters for mass-market dApps (e.g., social, gaming) where micro-transactions are frequent. Optimism's EVM-equivalent architecture means existing Solidity tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) works with minimal friction, accelerating development.
~$0.01
Avg. Transfer Fee
2,000+
TPS (Theoretical)
02
Optimism: Faster & More Predictable Finality
Specific advantage: ~1 hour to Ethereum finality via fault proofs (Cannon). This matters for bridges and exchanges (e.g., Across, Synthetix) that require strong economic guarantees. While slower than validity proofs, it provides a clear, auditable challenge period for high-value settlements.
~1 hour
Time to Finality
03
Starknet: Higher Computational Throughput
Specific advantage: Validity proofs (STARKs) enable massive off-chain computation with a tiny on-chain footprint. This matters for complex DeFi strategies (e.g., zkLend, Nostra) and on-chain gaming where a single proof can verify thousands of state updates, avoiding per-transaction gas costs.
9,000+
TPS (Theoretical)
04
Starknet: Near-Instant Finality for Users
Specific advantage: Sub-second L2 confirmation with ~12-minute Ethereum settlement. This matters for high-frequency trading and responsive Web3 apps where user experience is critical. The Cairo VM is optimized for ZK-provable computation, enabling novel app designs impossible on EVM.
< 1 sec
L2 Confirmation
~12 min
To Ethereum
OPTIMISM VS STARKNET
Throughput & Performance Benchmarks
Direct comparison of key performance metrics for L2 scaling solutions.
| Metric | Optimism (OP Stack) | Starknet (StarkEx/Starknet) |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | ~2,000 | ~10,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.05 - $0.15 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~12 min | ~2-3 hours |
Fraud Proof Window | 7 days | N/A (Validity Proofs) |
Data Availability Mode | Ethereum Calldata | Ethereum Calldata / DAC |
Native Account Abstraction |
OPTIMISM VS STARKNET
Cost Analysis: Throughput vs. Transaction Cost
Direct comparison of scalability and cost metrics for two leading L2 solutions.
| Metric | Optimism (OP Stack) | Starknet (StarkEx/Starknet) |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | ~4,000 | ~65,000 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.50 | $0.001 - $0.01 |
Data Availability Layer | Ethereum L1 | Ethereum L1 |
Fraud Proof System | Single-Round (Fault Proofs) | Validity Proofs (ZK-STARKs) |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~15 minutes | ~12 hours |
Time to Inclusion (L2) | < 2 seconds | < 15 seconds |
Native Account Abstraction |
pros-cons-a
SCALING SHOWDOWN
Optimism vs Starknet: Throughput
A data-driven comparison of transaction throughput capabilities, highlighting the fundamental trade-offs between Optimistic and ZK-Rollup architectures.
01
Optimism: Superior Practical Throughput
Optimistic Rollup design enables high, stable throughput by posting cheap data to Ethereum L1. Current TPS is ~2,000 (source: L2BEAT), with a theoretical ceiling tied to Ethereum's data availability. This matters for high-volume DeFi protocols like Uniswap and Perpetual Protocol that require consistent, low-cost execution.
~2,000 TPS
Current Throughput
< $0.01
Avg. Tx Cost
02
Optimism: Faster Finality for Users
1-hour challenge period means users experience fast, soft confirmation (seconds) for most actions, with full Ethereum-level security finalizing later. This matters for dApps prioritizing user experience, like NFT marketplaces and social apps, where perceived speed is critical.
~1 sec
Soft Confirmation
1 hour
Full Finality
03
Starknet: Higher Theoretical Ceiling
ZK-Rollup (STARK) proofs compress computation more efficiently than data. This allows for a theoretical TPS in the tens of thousands as the proving technology matures, with less direct dependency on Ethereum's data bandwidth. This matters for mass-market gaming and complex on-chain logic where computational density is the bottleneck.
10k+ TPS
Theoretical Max
04
Starknet: Instant Cryptographic Finality
Validity proofs provide immediate, mathematically guaranteed finality upon L1 verification (~12 min), with no withdrawal delay. This matters for institutional DeFi, cross-chain bridges, and exchanges where capital efficiency and instant settlement are non-negotiable.
~12 min
L1 Finality
0 hours
Withdrawal Delay
pros-cons-b
OPTIMISM VS STARKNET
Starknet: Throughput Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for high-throughput applications at a glance.
01
Optimism Pro: Lower Latency for Users
Faster finality for simple transactions: Optimism's optimistic rollup design provides soft confirmation in ~1 second, with full finality after the 7-day challenge window. This matters for DeFi protocols like Aave and Uniswap where user experience for swaps and deposits is critical.
~1 sec
Soft Confirmation
7 days
Full Finality
03
Starknet Pro: Higher Theoretical Throughput
Massive scalability via STARK proofs: Starknet's ZK-rollup architecture can batch thousands of transactions into a single proof, achieving ~100-200 TPS on mainnet with a roadmap to ~10,000 TPS. This matters for mass-market gaming and social apps requiring low-cost, high-volume interactions.
100-200+ TPS
Current Capacity
04
Starknet Pro: Instant Cryptographic Finality
No withdrawal delays: Transactions are finalized on Ethereum L1 as soon as the validity proof is verified (~3-5 hours), unlike optimistic rollups' 7-day challenge period. This matters for bridges and exchanges where capital efficiency and security are paramount.
3-5 hours
L1 Finality
05
Optimism Con: Throughput Limited by Fraud Proofs
Inherits L1 data costs: Every transaction's calldata is posted to Ethereum, creating a hard ceiling on scalability and making throughput highly sensitive to L1 gas prices. This matters for applications predicting stable operating costs at scale.
06
Starknet Con: Prover Latency & Complexity
Proof generation bottleneck: Creating STARK proofs for a batch adds latency (minutes to hours) before the batch is posted to L1. Developing in Cairo also requires a steeper learning curve. This matters for teams prioritizing sub-second user feedback or with existing Solidity expertise.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Optimism for DeFi
Verdict: The established, capital-efficient hub for high-value applications. Strengths: Dominant TVL ($6B+), deep liquidity pools (Uniswap, Aave, Synthetix), and seamless composability via EVM-equivalence. The Superchain vision with OP Stack offers a clear path for appchain deployment and shared security. Bedrock upgrade provides sub-1 minute deposit times and lower fees. Considerations: Throughput is ultimately bounded by Ethereum's data availability costs; high network activity can still lead to fee spikes.
Starknet for DeFi
Verdict: The high-throughput engine for complex, computation-heavy logic. Strengths: Superior theoretical TPS (hundreds to thousands) via STARK proofs and Cairo VM. Enables novel DeFi primitives with complex account abstraction (Argent X, Braavos) and on-chain order books. Volition mode allows developers to choose between Ethereum (security) and Starknet (cost) for data. Considerations: Ecosystem is younger with lower TVL (~$100M). Cairo's learning curve and different tooling (Scarb, Starkli) require adaptation from Solidity devs.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Optimism and Starknet for throughput is a strategic decision between proven, general-purpose scaling and specialized, high-performance compute.
Optimism excels at delivering high, consistent throughput for mainstream EVM applications by leveraging battle-tested Optimistic Rollup technology. Its core strength is the Superchain vision, enabling horizontal scaling through shared security and interoperability between chains like Base and Zora. This results in a robust ecosystem with a proven track record, achieving over 40 TPS on the mainnet during peak demand and securing over $7B in TVL. For projects like Synthetix and Uniswap, it provides a familiar, low-friction scaling path.
Starknet takes a fundamentally different approach by using ZK-STARKs for validity proofs, offering mathematically guaranteed security and superior computational scalability. Its Cairo VM is designed for complex logic, enabling high-throughput applications like on-chain gaming (e.g., Influence) and high-frequency DeFi that would be prohibitively expensive on other chains. The trade-off is a steeper development curve, as it requires learning Cairo and adapting to a non-EVM-native environment, though tools like the Solidity-to-Cairo compiler (Warp) are bridging this gap.
The key trade-off: If your priority is ecosystem maturity, EVM compatibility, and a proven path to scale general-purpose dApps, choose Optimism and its Superchain. If you prioritize mathematical security guarantees, maximum computational throughput for specialized logic (e.g., gaming, complex DeFi), and are willing to invest in a non-EVM stack, Starknet is the superior technical choice. For CTOs, the decision hinges on whether immediate developer adoption or long-term, unbounded scalability is the primary strategic driver.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
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