Celestia excels at providing minimal-cost, high-throughput DA by decoupling consensus and execution. Its modular architecture, using Data Availability Sampling (DAS), allows light nodes to securely verify data availability without downloading entire blocks. This results in sub-cent transaction costs and scalability that grows with the number of light nodes, a model proven by networks like Arbitrum Orbit chains and Manta Pacific which have migrated to Celestia for cost efficiency.
LABS
Comparisons
Celestia vs Polygon CDK Data Availability: Modular DA for ZK EVM Chains
A technical analysis for CTOs and architects comparing Celestia's modular network against Polygon CDK's integrated Validium/DAC models for ZK rollup data availability.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Modular DA Decision for ZK EVM Chains
Choosing a Data Availability (DA) layer is the foundational decision for any ZK Rollup, defining its security, cost, and interoperability model.
Polygon CDK takes a different approach by integrating with the Polygon AggLayer, offering a unified, Ethereum-aligned security and liquidity pool. Chains built with it default to using Ethereum for DA via EIP-4844 blobs or an optional DAC, ensuring maximal compatibility with the Ethereum ecosystem. This results in a trade-off: slightly higher baseline costs than pure modular alternatives, but with seamless native bridging and shared security across the AggLayer's connected chains like Astar and Immutable zkEVM.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing operational cost and maximizing theoretical scalability for a standalone chain, choose Celestia. If you prioritize deep integration with Ethereum's security, a unified liquidity pool, and a streamlined path to interoperability within the Polygon ecosystem, choose Polygon CDK.
tldr-summary
Celestia vs Polygon CDK Data Availability
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for choosing a modular DA layer for your ZK EVM chain.
02
Celestia: Cost Efficiency at Scale
Blobspace pricing model: DA costs scale with data size, not L1 gas. Proven low costs: ~$0.10 per MB. This is critical for high-throughput dApps like gaming or social networks where posting frequent, cheap proofs is essential for user experience and sustainable economics.
~$0.10
Per MB (est.)
04
Polygon CDK: Integrated ZK Stack
Batteries-included framework: Tightly integrates Polygon's zkEVM prover, bridge, and explorer. Offers a unified liquidity and tooling ecosystem with other CDK chains. Best for teams prioritizing rapid deployment and interoperability within the Polygon ecosystem (e.g., Immutable zkEVM, Astar zkEVM).
< 0.20 Gwei
EigenDA Blob Cost Target
MODULAR DATA AVAILABILITY FOR ZK ROLLUPS
Feature Comparison: Celestia vs Polygon CDK DA
Direct comparison of core technical and economic metrics for modular data availability layers.
| Metric / Feature | Celestia DA | Polygon CDK DA |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | $0.001 - $0.01 | $0.0005 - $0.005 |
Throughput (Blobs per Block) | 8 blobs | 3 blobs |
Consensus & DA Layer | Celestia (Cosmos SDK, Tendermint) | Polygon PoS (Modified Bor/Heimdall) |
Primary Use Case | General-purpose modular DA for any rollup | Optimized DA for Polygon CDK ZK EVM chains |
Data Sampling | ||
Native ZK Integration | ||
Settlement & Execution | External (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum) | Integrated (via Polygon CDK) |
EVM Compatibility |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Celestia vs Polygon CDK Data Availability: Modular DA for ZK EVM Chains
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading Data Availability (DA) solutions for ZK-powered L2s and L3s.
01
Celestia: Cost Efficiency
Specific advantage: Sub-cent transaction costs for data posting. Celestia's modular architecture and data availability sampling (DAS) enable extremely low fees, often < $0.01 per MB. This matters for high-throughput applications like gaming or social dApps where minimizing operational cost is critical.
02
Celestia: Sovereignty & Flexibility
Specific advantage: Decoupled security and execution. Chains using Celestia (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack) control their own sequencer and governance while leveraging Celestia for DA. This matters for protocols needing maximum customization (e.g., dYdX, Eclipse) without being tied to a specific L1's roadmap.
03
Polygon CDK: Ethereum-Aligned Security
Specific advantage: Inherits Ethereum's consensus via EigenDA. Chains built with Polygon CDK (e.g., Immutable zkEVM, Astar zkEVM) post data availability to a network of Ethereum operators. This matters for DeFi protocols and institutions where maximizing security guarantees and minimizing trust assumptions is the top priority.
04
Polygon CDK: Integrated ZK Stack
Specific advantage: Tightly coupled proving and DA. The CDK offers a unified toolkit with a Type 2 zkEVM prover, bridge, and DA via EigenDA. This matters for teams seeking a turnkey solution to launch an Ethereum-equivalent ZK L2/L3 without assembling disparate components.
05
Celestia: Trade-off - New Security Model
Specific disadvantage: Relies on its own Proof-of-Stake validator set (~$1B+ staked) rather than Ethereum's. While light clients verify via DAS, this introduces a new, albeit large, trust assumption. This is a consideration for maximalist applications that will only accept Ethereum-level security.
06
Polygon CDK: Trade-off - Vendor Lock-in & Cost
Specific disadvantage: Higher cost structure and stack integration. DA fees are tied to EigenDA's pricing on Ethereum, typically $0.50 - $2.00 per MB. The integrated stack can also limit flexibility versus a modular approach. This matters for cost-sensitive or highly specialized chains that may outgrow the bundled offering.
pros-cons-b
Celestia vs Polygon CDK Data Availability
Polygon CDK DA (Validium/DAC): Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for modular DA solutions powering ZK EVM chains.
01
Celestia: Modular Sovereignty
Decoupled consensus & execution: Celestia provides pure data availability, allowing chains like Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Stack, and Eclipse to choose their own execution environment. This matters for teams requiring maximum flexibility and sovereign control over their chain's rules and upgrades.
02
Celestia: Cost Efficiency at Scale
Blobspace pricing model: Data posting costs scale with bytes, not computation. With ~$0.10 per MB (as of Q4 2024), it's highly economical for high-throughput chains. This matters for applications like gaming or social protocols with massive transaction volumes where per-TX cost is critical.
~$0.10/MB
DA Cost
03
Polygon CDK: Native Ethereum Security
Ethereum L1 settlement: Chains built with Polygon CDK (using Validium/DAC) settle proofs directly to Ethereum, inheriting its economic security. This matters for DeFi protocols and institutions where the highest assurance of finality and censorship resistance is non-negotiable.
04
Polygon CDK: Integrated ZK Stack
End-to-end optimization: The CDK provides a tightly integrated stack from the zkEVM (Type 1, 2, or 3) to the DAC network. This matters for developers seeking a batteries-included, production-ready path to launch, reducing integration complexity and time-to-market.
05
Celestia: Risk of Decoupling
Separate security budget: Reliance on Celestia's own validator set and token economics introduces a new trust assumption. This matters for risk-averse builders who prioritize Ethereum's established security over modular innovation and potential liveness faults in a separate system.
06
Polygon CDK: Higher Baseline Cost
Ethereum calldata pricing: Validium mode still requires posting state diffs and proofs to Ethereum, subjecting costs to L1 gas volatility. This matters for ultra-low-cost chains where the marginal cost of Ethereum's base layer can become a bottleneck during network congestion.
MODULAR DA FOR ZK EVM CHAINS
Celestia vs Polygon CDK: Data Availability Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of fees, economic models, and key operational metrics for ZK L2 developers.
| Metric | Celestia | Polygon CDK |
|---|---|---|
Data Cost per MB (Est.) | $0.50 - $2.00 | $0.01 - $0.10 |
DA Fee Model | Pay-per-blob (TIA gas) | Fixed fee (MATIC/ETH) |
Native Token for Fees | TIA | MATIC or ETH |
Settlement & DA Coupling | ||
Ethereum Data Posting Required | ||
Throughput (Blobs per Block) | 8 | 2 |
EVM Compatibility | All (via Blobstream) | ZK EVM Only |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Celestia for Cost & Scale
Verdict: The definitive choice for maximum scalability and minimal data costs. Strengths: Celestia's modular architecture and data availability sampling (DAS) enable sub-cent fees at massive scale. It's purpose-built for high-throughput ZK rollups where the primary constraint is cheap, abundant data. Rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and Eclipse use Celestia to decouple execution from expensive settlement layers. Trade-off: You inherit the security and liveness assumptions of the Celestia network, which is newer than Ethereum. Requires a separate settlement layer (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon zkEVM) for finality and dispute resolution.
Polygon CDK for Cost & Scale
Verdict: A balanced, integrated option for Ethereum-aligned scaling. Strengths: Leverages Ethereum for data via EIP-4844 blobs, offering significant cost savings over calldata while maintaining Ethereum's robust security for data availability. The CDK provides a unified stack with the Polygon zkEVM prover and bridge, simplifying deployment. Ideal for projects that prioritize Ethereum's ecosystem security but need cheaper, scalable ZK L2s. Trade-off: Long-term data costs are tied to Ethereum's blob market, which may be more volatile and expensive than a dedicated DA layer like Celestia at extreme scales.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Celestia and Polygon CDK for data availability is a strategic decision between a specialized, cost-optimized modular layer and a tightly integrated, Ethereum-aligned ecosystem.
Celestia excels at providing minimal, cost-effective data availability for sovereign rollups because it is a purpose-built modular blockchain that decouples execution from consensus and data. For example, its blobspace market has consistently offered DA at a fraction of Ethereum's cost, with fees often below $0.01 per MB, making it ideal for high-throughput chains like dYmension and Manta Pacific that prioritize low operational overhead.
Polygon CDK takes a different approach by offering integrated, Ethereum-aligned DA through Polygon Avail. This results in a trade-off: while costs are higher than Celestia's, it provides native interoperability with the broader Polygon ecosystem (e.g., AggLayer for shared liquidity) and inherits stronger Ethereum security assumptions, which is a critical factor for protocols like Immutable zkEVM and Astar zkEVM that require deep integration with Ethereum's economic security.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing transaction costs and maximizing sovereignty for a new, high-volume chain, choose Celestia. If you prioritize Ethereum security alignment, seamless ecosystem interoperability, and a battle-tested ZK stack for an application-specific chain, choose Polygon CDK with Avail.
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