Celestia excels at providing a maximally decentralized and neutral data availability (DA) layer because it is a sovereign, purpose-built blockchain using Data Availability Sampling (DAS) and a minimal consensus layer. For example, its mainnet beta consistently processes over 100 MB per block, enabling high-throughput rollups like Arbitrum Orbit and Optimism's Superchain to post data at costs under $0.001 per KB. Its design ensures that any rollup can verify data availability without trusting a centralized committee.
LABS
Comparisons
Celestia DA vs EigenDA: The Modular Data Availability Battle
A technical analysis comparing Celestia's purpose-built modular DA network with EigenDA's Ethereum restaking-based service. We break down architecture, cost, security trade-offs, and optimal use cases for rollup developers and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Paths to Modular Data Availability
Celestia and EigenDA represent two distinct architectural philosophies for providing data availability to modular blockchains.
EigenDA takes a different approach by leveraging Ethereum's existing validator set and security through EigenLayer's restaking mechanism. This results in a trade-off: it inherits Ethereum's robust economic security and deep liquidity, but its capacity is managed by a permissioned set of operators initially, with a roadmap to decentralization. This strategy allows it to offer extremely high throughput—targeting 10 MB/s initially—while being natively integrated within the Ethereum ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty, maximal censorship resistance, and a blockchain-agnostic foundation, choose Celestia. If you prioritize deep integration with Ethereum's security model, leveraging existing ETH stake, and benefiting from the Ethereum trust network, choose EigenDA.
tldr-summary
Celestia DA vs EigenDA
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for the two leading modular data availability layers.
01
Celestia: Sovereign Rollups & Modular Design
Architectural purity: Celestia provides a minimal, purpose-built DA layer, enabling true sovereign rollups with independent governance and forkability. This matters for teams prioritizing maximum sovereignty and flexibility, like dYdX v4 or Celo migrating to an L2.
02
Celestia: Cost Efficiency at Scale
Blobspace pricing: Leverages data availability sampling (DAS) and Namespaced Merkle Trees to keep costs low and predictable. At scale, costs can be ~$0.01 per MB. This matters for high-throughput, cost-sensitive applications like gaming or social protocols.
~$0.01/MB
Cost at Scale
03
EigenDA: Ethereum Security & Restaking
Cryptoeconomic security: Leverages EigenLayer's restaking to inherit security from Ethereum's validator set and economic weight. This matters for protocols like Mantle Network or Fraxtal that prioritize EVM-native security guarantees and want to avoid introducing a new trust layer.
04
EigenDA: High Throughput & Integration
Optimized for high TPS: Built for rollups needing massive scale, with a current target of 10 MB/s (80 TPS of calldata). Tight integration with the EigenLayer ecosystem provides a seamless path for AVS services. This matters for large-scale DeFi or consumer chains requiring high data bandwidth.
10 MB/s
Target Throughput
DATA AVAILABILITY LAYER COMPARISON
Celestia DA vs EigenDA: Head-to-Head Comparison
Direct comparison of core technical and economic metrics for modular data availability layers.
| Metric | Celestia DA | EigenDA |
|---|---|---|
Data Availability Cost (per MB) | $0.003 | $0.001 |
Throughput (Blobs per Block) | 8 | 32 |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||
Proof System | Celestia Nodes | EigenLayer AVS + Ethereum Consensus |
Economic Security Source | Native TIA Staking | Restaked ETH via EigenLayer |
Time to Data Attestation | ~15 seconds | ~12 minutes |
Mainnet Launch | Oct 2023 | Apr 2024 (EigenLayer Mainnet) |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Celestia DA vs EigenDA: Blob Pricing & Economic Models
Direct cost and economic model comparison for data availability solutions.
| Metric | Celestia | EigenDA |
|---|---|---|
Cost per MB (Current) | $0.003 | $0.0006 |
Pricing Model | Dynamic Market (Blobspace) | Stable Fee (EigenLayer AVS) |
Throughput (Blobs/sec) | ~100 | ~1,000 |
Economic Security | Native Token (TIA) Staking | Restaked ETH via EigenLayer |
Data Availability Sampling (DAS) | ||
Direct Settlement Layer | ||
Mainnet Launch | Oct 2023 | Apr 2024 |
pros-cons-a
DATA AVAILABILITY LAYER COMPARISON
Celestia DA vs EigenDA: Pros and Cons
A side-by-side analysis of the leading modular DA layers. Use this to evaluate technical trade-offs for your rollup or appchain.
02
Celestia DA: Cons
Separate Security Budget: Relies on its own validator set and $TIA token for security. This introduces a new trust assumption distinct from Ethereum.
Limited Data Attestations: While data is available, there's no native cryptographic proof of availability posted to Ethereum, which can be a consideration for highly security-sensitive L2s.
Early Mainnet Stage: Although operational, it's a younger network compared to Ethereum's base layer, with a shorter track record for liveness and resilience under extreme load.
04
EigenDA: Cons
Dependence on EigenLayer's Growth: Security scales with the EigenLayer restaking ecosystem. Early-stage total value locked (TVL) and operator set are still growing compared to established chains.
Complexity of Restaking Model: Introduces the slashing risks and economic dynamics of EigenLayer's actively validated services (AVS) model, adding a layer of complexity for integrators.
Potentially Higher Cost for Certain Data: While designed for low cost, the pricing model is newer and may be less predictable than Celestia's pure fee market for some use cases, especially during early adoption phases.
pros-cons-b
Celestia DA vs EigenDA
EigenDA: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for the two leading modular data availability layers.
01
Celestia: Sovereign Flexibility
Decoupled execution and settlement: Rollups built on Celestia (e.g., Arbitrum Orbit, Eclipse) can choose their own settlement layer (Ethereum, Polygon, Solana). This enables maximum sovereignty for appchains and is ideal for projects wanting to avoid Ethereum's execution layer constraints.
02
Celestia: Cost Efficiency
Lower data publishing costs: As a standalone, purpose-built DA layer, Celestia offers significantly cheaper blob storage. For example, publishing 1 MB of data can cost ~$0.01 vs Ethereum's ~$1+. This is critical for high-throughput, low-fee chains like gaming or social dApps.
03
EigenDA: Ethereum Security
Inherits Ethereum's economic security: Data availability is secured by Ethereum validators restaking ETH via EigenLayer, not a separate token/protocol. This provides a stronger security guarantee (~$20B+ in restaked ETH) for protocols where maximal security is non-negotiable, like high-value DeFi.
04
EigenDA: Native Integration
Seamless L2 compatibility: Built as an Ethereum-native AVS, EigenDA offers plug-and-play integration for existing L2 stacks (OP Stack, Arbitrum Nitro, Polygon CDK). This minimizes migration overhead for teams already committed to the Ethereum ecosystem.
05
Celestia: Maturity & Adoption
First-mover advantage and proven track record: Live on mainnet with ~$200M+ TVL and integrations across major rollup frameworks. A larger, established ecosystem (Celestiums, Rollkit) provides more tooling and reference implementations for builders.
06
EigenDA: Economic Alignment
Shared security and rewards: Operators earn rewards in ETH (via restaking), aligning incentives with Ethereum's security. Rollup sequencers can potentially share fees with the EigenLayer ecosystem, creating a unified economic flywheel for Ethereum-centric applications.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Celestia for Cost & Scale\nVerdict: The clear winner for maximizing throughput and minimizing data availability (DA) costs for high-volume, low-value transactions.\nStrengths:\n- Modular Design: Decouples execution from consensus and DA, allowing rollups to scale independently.\n- Blobstream: Provides cryptographic proofs of data availability to Ethereum L1, enabling secure bridging.\n- Cost Efficiency: Data posting costs are orders of magnitude lower than Ethereum calldata, optimized for high-throughput chains like gaming or social apps.\nIdeal For: Sovereign rollups, app-chains, and any protocol where transaction volume is the primary constraint and cost-per-byte is critical.\n\n### EigenDA for Cost & Scale\nVerdict: A highly competitive, Ethereum-aligned alternative for rollups seeking deep integration and restaking security.\nStrengths:\n- Ethereum Security via Restaking: Leverages the economic security of Ethereum's staked ETH via EigenLayer, a unique value proposition.\n- High Throughput: Designed to support multiple high-volume rollups concurrently (e.g., Layer N, Mantle).\n- Proven Demand: Already adopted by major L2s, creating a strong network effect.\nIdeal For: Ethereum-aligned L2s (Optimism, Arbitrum stacks) that prioritize leveraging Ethereum's validator set and ecosystem over a fully sovereign model.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Celestia DA and EigenDA is a foundational decision that hinges on your protocol's core values: modular sovereignty versus Ethereum-centric security.
Celestia DA excels at providing a permissionless, modular data availability layer for sovereign rollups. Its core innovation is data availability sampling (DAS), which allows light nodes to securely verify data without downloading it all, enabling high throughput and low costs. For example, the network is designed to scale to ~1,400 TPS for blob data, with costs typically a fraction of a cent per megabyte. This makes it the go-to choice for new L2s and app-chains seeking maximum scalability and independence from a monolithic chain's execution constraints.
EigenDA takes a different approach by being a hyperscale data availability layer built directly on Ethereum, secured by restaked ETH via EigenLayer. This strategy results in a powerful trade-off: it inherits Ethereum's robust economic security and deep ecosystem trust but operates with higher baseline costs and a more permissioned, operator-based model initially. Its throughput is formidable, targeting 10-100 MB/s, but its primary value is as a security-as-a-service extension for rollups that prioritize Ethereum alignment over pure modularity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimal cost, maximum sovereignty, and building a new modular stack, choose Celestia. It is ideal for protocols like Arbitrum Orbit, Optimism Superchain, and Caldera rollups. If you prioritize leveraging Ethereum's established security budget and deep liquidity from day one, and are building an L2 like Mantle or a restaking-aligned app, choose EigenDA. Your choice ultimately defines your chain's security pedigree and its long-term architectural dependencies.
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