EigenDA excels at deep Ethereum integration and security inheritance because it is built as a native data availability (DA) layer on top of Ethereum's consensus, secured by restaked ETH via EigenLayer. For example, its design leverages Ethereum's extensive validator set and economic security, which exceeds $15B in restaked TVL, to provide a cryptoeconomically secure DA guarantee that feels native to the Ethereum ecosystem for rollups like Mantle and Layer N.
LABS
Comparisons
EigenDA vs Celestia: Data Availability for Ethereum-Centric AVSs
A technical comparison of EigenLayer's native DA solution and the modular Celestia network, analyzing security source, cost, integration, and trade-offs for AVS operators.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Data Availability Battle for Ethereum's Future
EigenDA and Celestia represent two distinct architectural paths for securing data availability for Ethereum's growing ecosystem of Actively Validated Services (AVSs).
Celestia takes a different approach by building a modular, sovereign consensus and data availability layer from the ground up. This results in a trade-off: it offers higher theoretical throughput and lower fees (e.g., ~$0.001 per MB vs. Ethereum's ~$0.10 per MB for calldata) by decoupling execution from consensus, but its security is bootstrapped independently and does not directly inherit from Ethereum's validator set.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security inheritance and seamless integration within the Ethereum stack, choose EigenDA. If you prioritize minimal transaction costs, maximum scalability for data-heavy applications, and architectural sovereignty, choose Celestia. The decision hinges on whether you value Ethereum-aligned security or modular scalability as your primary constraint.
tldr-summary
EigenDA vs Celestia
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for Ethereum-centric AVS developers choosing a data availability layer.
01
EigenDA: Native Ethereum Integration
Direct Restaking Security: Leverages Ethereum's economic security via EigenLayer restaking. This matters for AVSs that require maximal trust minimization and want to inherit security from the largest staked asset base (ETH).
$18B+
TVL in EigenLayer
02
EigenDA: Optimized for Rollups
High Throughput, Low Cost: Built for high-volume rollup data posting with a blob-native architecture. This matters for high-throughput L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism superchains seeking sub-cent per blob costs and native Ethereum settlement integration.
10 MB/s
Target Throughput
03
Celestia: Modular & Chain-Agnostic
Sovereign Rollups & Interoperability: Provides a modular DA layer for any chain, enabling sovereign execution (e.g., Rollkit, Eclipse). This matters for teams building app-specific chains or new L1s that need flexible, chain-agnostic data availability.
50+
Integrated Rollups/Chains
04
Celestia: Proven Production Scale
Battle-Tested Network: Live mainnet with significant adoption (e.g., dYdX Chain, Manta). This matters for production-ready projects that prioritize a mature ecosystem of tools (Optimint, Rollkit) and proven reliability over newer, Ethereum-specific solutions.
2+ Years
Mainnet Live
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
EigenDA vs Celestia: Data Availability Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for Ethereum-centric AVS data availability.
| Metric | EigenDA | Celestia |
|---|---|---|
Ethereum Native Security | ||
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | $0.50 - $1.50 | $0.01 - $0.10 |
Throughput (MB/s) | ~10 MB/s | ~100 MB/s |
Finality Time | ~12 minutes | ~15 seconds |
EVM Compatibility | ||
Active AVS Integrations | 20+ | 50+ |
Data Blob Encoding | EIP-4844 Blobs | Celestia Namespace |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
EigenDA vs Celestia: Data Availability for Ethereum-Centric AVSs
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocol architects choosing a data availability layer.
02
EigenDA: Cost-Effective for High-Throughput Rollups
Optimized for Blob Pricing: Designed to batch data from multiple rollups (e.g., Mantle, Frax) into Ethereum blobs, achieving lower costs per byte at scale. This matters for high-throughput L2s like gaming or social apps where sub-cent transaction fees are critical.
04
Celestia: Proven Throughput & Adoption
Higher Raw Bandwidth: Currently supports ~100+ rollups (e.g., Dymension, Caldera) with a theoretical throughput of ~100 MB per block. This matters for mass-scale deployments where data volume is the primary constraint and network effects are valuable.
05
EigenDA: Cons - Ethereum-Centric Lock-in
Limited to ETH Ecosystem: Its security and utility are intrinsically tied to Ethereum L1 and EigenLayer's restaking dynamics. This is a drawback for projects targeting multi-chain or non-EVM architectures like Solana or Cosmos appchains.
06
Celestia: Cons - Separate Security & Tokenomics
Independent Token Burden: Requires bootstrapping and maintaining security for its own consensus layer ($TIA token). This adds tokenomics complexity and operational overhead compared to leveraging Ethereum's established validator set.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
EigenDA vs Celestia: Data Availability for Ethereum-Centric AVSs
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for architects choosing a data availability layer for Ethereum L2s and Actively Validated Services (AVSs).
01
EigenDA: Native Ethereum Integration
Specific advantage: Built as an EigenLayer AVS, inheriting Ethereum's economic security via restaked ETH. This matters for protocols like AltLayer or Lagrange that require crypto-economic guarantees directly tied to the Ethereum ecosystem, minimizing trust assumptions for L2 sequencers.
02
EigenDA: Cost Efficiency for High-Throughput Rollups
Specific advantage: ~$0.10 per MB blob cost, significantly undercutting Ethereum mainnet and competitors for volume. This matters for high-throughput gaming or social apps on OP Stack or Arbitrum Orbit chains where posting frequent state diffs is the primary cost driver.
03
Celestia: Modular Sovereignty & Flexibility
Specific advantage: Data Availability Sampling (DAS) enables light nodes to verify data without downloading entire blocks. This matters for sovereign rollups or app-chains using Rollkit or Optimint that need maximum autonomy in execution and settlement, not just data posting.
04
Celestia: Proven Multi-Chain Network Effects
Specific advantage: $1B+ TVL across connected rollups like Manta, Arbitrum Nova, and Scroll. This matters for protocols prioritizing established liquidity bridges and a mature tooling ecosystem (e.g., Celestia-Pyth oracles) from day one.
05
EigenDA: Early-Stage & Centralized Sequencing Risk
Specific trade-off: Currently relies on a permissioned set of operators from EigenLayer, with decentralized sequencing roadmap TBD. This matters for teams requiring immediate, battle-tested decentralization and cannot accept operator-set risk for their AVS's liveness.
06
Celestia: Separate Security & Bridging Overhead
Specific trade-off: $TIA token security is separate from Ethereum, requiring additional trust and bridging layers for L2 finality. This matters for strictly Ethereum-aligned teams who view any extra trust bridge as a complexity and security liability.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
EigenDA for DeFi
Verdict: The default, integrated choice for Ethereum-centric DeFi. Strengths: Native integration with EigenLayer's restaking security model and Ethereum's economic finality. This creates a seamless trust environment for high-value DeFi applications like Aave, Uniswap, or Compound forks. Data availability proofs are secured by Ethereum validators, offering the highest security guarantees for protocols managing billions in TVL. Trade-offs: Higher costs and potential throughput constraints compared to modular alternatives. Best for protocols where security and Ethereum alignment are non-negotiable.
Celestia for DeFi
Verdict: A high-throughput, cost-effective alternative for novel or scaling-focused DeFi. Strengths: Significantly lower data availability costs and higher throughput (scales with the number of light nodes). Ideal for experimental DeFi primitives, high-frequency perp DEXs, or applications that need to post large volumes of state diffs cheaply. The modular design allows for custom execution environments. Trade-offs: A separate security and consensus layer from Ethereum. Requires teams to evaluate the security of the Celestia validator set and bridge assumptions.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your DA layer selection for Ethereum-centric AVS development.
EigenDA excels at providing a seamless, cost-effective data availability layer for applications deeply integrated with the Ethereum ecosystem. Its primary strength is its native integration with EigenLayer's restaking security model, which allows it to inherit security from Ethereum's staked ETH. This results in lower operational friction for AVSs already using EigenLayer and predictable, low costs—currently under $0.001 per MB of data—for posting blobs to the Ethereum consensus layer via EIP-4844.
Celestia takes a different approach by offering a modular, sovereign DA layer that is blockchain-agnostic. This results in a trade-off: it provides greater flexibility and scalability for projects that may operate across multiple ecosystems (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon CDK), but introduces the overhead of managing a separate security and data attestation layer. Its proven mainnet, with over $100M in TVL and support for rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and Eclipse, demonstrates its capability as a high-throughput, general-purpose DA solution.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing Ethereum alignment, minimizing cost, and simplifying your stack for a native L2 or AVS, choose EigenDA. Its design is optimized for this singular use case. If you prioritize maximum modular flexibility, sovereign execution environments, or a future path beyond the Ethereum ecosystem, choose Celestia. Its architecture is built for developers who view DA as a portable, pluggable component.
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