Sequential EOA Transactions excel at predictable, simple state changes because each transaction is a single, independent on-chain action. For example, a standard ERC-20 transfer on Ethereum Mainnet executes in a single block with a deterministic gas fee, making it ideal for straightforward transfers or single-function calls. This model is the bedrock of protocols like Uniswap V2 and Compound, where each swap or borrow is a discrete, auditable event.
LABS
Comparisons
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) vs. Sequential EOA Transactions
A technical analysis comparing the performance, user experience, and cost of executing multiple actions atomically via ERC-4337 UserOperations versus traditional sequential transactions from Externally Owned Accounts (EOAs).
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Atomic vs Sequential Execution Dilemma
The fundamental choice between batched UserOperations and sequential EOA transactions defines the user experience and scalability of your dApp.
Batched UserOperations (via Account Abstraction) take a different approach by enabling atomic multi-step operations within a single transaction. This results in superior user experience—like sponsoring gas fees and session keys—but introduces complexity in bundler infrastructure and potential MEV considerations. Protocols like Safe{Wallet} and Biconomy leverage this for batched approvals and transfers, while networks like Polygon and Arbitrum see high AA adoption for social recovery and gasless onboarding.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximal simplicity, security, and composability with existing DeFi legos, choose sequential EOA transactions. If you prioritize next-generation UX, atomicity for complex workflows, and abstracting crypto complexities from end-users, choose batched UserOperations via ERC-4337.
tldr-summary
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) vs. Sequential EOA Transactions
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the two paradigms for executing on-chain actions, highlighting core architectural trade-offs.
01
Batch Transactions (UserOperations)
Architectural Advantage: Single on-chain transaction bundles multiple actions (e.g., swap, stake, bridge). This matters for complex DeFi workflows and gas sponsorship models (e.g., Paymasters).
~40%
Avg. Gas Savings
02
Sequential EOA Transactions
Simplicity & Predictability: Each action requires a separate, user-signed transaction. This matters for simple transfers, auditing, and protocols requiring explicit per-action consent.
100%
Wallet Compatibility
03
Batch Transactions (UserOperations)
User Experience (UX) Leap: Enables account abstraction features: session keys, social recovery, and gasless onboarding. Critical for mass-market dApps and gaming.
04
Sequential EOA Transactions
Universal Liquidity & Tooling: Direct access to all DEX liquidity (Uniswap, Curve) and battle-tested tools (MetaMask, Etherscan). Essential for high-frequency traders and existing infrastructure.
05
Batch Transactions (UserOperations)
Relayer Dependency: Requires a Bundler (e.g., Stackup, Alchemy) and may rely on a Paymaster. Introduces a trust assumption and potential centralization vector for transaction ordering.
06
Sequential EOA Transactions
Atomicity Risk: Multi-step operations can fail mid-sequence, leaving users with partial execution and lost gas fees. A major pain point for arbitrage bots and complex settlements.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) vs. Sequential EOA Transactions
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for account abstraction vs. traditional transactions.
| Metric / Feature | Batch UserOperations (ERC-4337) | Sequential EOA Transactions |
|---|---|---|
Transaction Cost per Action (Avg.) | $0.001 - $0.10 | $0.50 - $50+ |
Atomic Multi-Operation Execution | ||
Gas Sponsorship (Paymaster) Support | ||
Native Session Keys / Automation | ||
Time to Finality (L2 Example) | < 1 sec | < 1 sec |
Developer Adoption (Bundler Endpoints) | Stackup, Alchemy, Biconomy | Standard RPC (Alchemy, Infura) |
Wallet Recovery / Social Login |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) vs. Sequential EOA Transactions
Direct comparison of key metrics for account abstraction (ERC-4337) vs. traditional Externally Owned Account transactions.
| Metric | Batch UserOperations (ERC-4337) | Sequential EOA Transactions |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Gas Cost per Operation | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.50 - $5.00+ |
Batch Efficiency (Ops per Submit) | 10-100+ | 1 |
Native Multi-Operation Atomicity | ||
Gas Sponsorship (Paymaster) Support | ||
Session Keys / Social Recovery | ||
Time to Finality (L1 Ethereum) | ~12 min | ~12 min |
Infrastructure Dependencies | Bundlers, Paymasters, Indexers | Standard RPC Node |
pros-cons-a
Batch (UserOp) vs. Sequential (EOA)
Pros and Cons: Batch Transactions (UserOperations)
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocol architects.
01
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) - Pros
Atomic Multi-Operation Bundles: Execute multiple actions (swap, stake, bridge) in a single on-chain transaction via bundlers like Alchemy or Stackup. This matters for complex DeFi interactions, reducing user friction and failed state risks.
Gas Abstraction & Sponsorship: Paymasters (e.g., Biconomy, Pimlico) enable gasless transactions or fee payment in ERC-20 tokens. Critical for onboarding non-crypto-native users and dApp growth.
Account Abstraction Foundation: Enables social recovery, session keys, and transaction batching natively via smart contract wallets (Safe, Argent). Essential for institutional custody and superior UX.
02
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) - Cons
Higher Protocol Complexity: Relies on a new mempool (alt mempool), bundlers, and paymasters. Increases integration surface and potential failure points compared to simple EOA eth_sendTransaction.
Latency & Reliability: UserOps depend on bundler infrastructure. If major providers like Alchemy's bundler service are down, transactions stall. EOA txs broadcast directly to the base layer.
Ecosystem Immaturity: Tooling (debugging, indexing) lags behind EOA standards. While growing, support across chains like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon is not yet uniform.
03
Sequential EOA Transactions - Pros
Maximum Compatibility & Simplicity: Universal support across all EVM chains (Ethereum, BSC, Avalanche) and every wallet (MetaMask, Rabby). Uses standard JSON-RPC (eth_sendTransaction). Ideal for broad, simple dApps.
Predictable Latency: Transactions are submitted directly to the public mempool or via RPC providers. No extra hop through a bundler network, leading to more consistent confirmation times.
Mature Tooling & Observability: Full support from Etherscan, Tenderly, and Blocknative for debugging. Established patterns for gas estimation and replacement (EIP-1559).
04
Sequential EOA Transactions - Cons
Poor UX for Complex Actions: Users must sign and pay gas for each step in a multi-step process (e.g., approve then swap). This leads to abandonment and failed transactions due to slippage or gas price changes.
No Native Gas Flexibility: Users must hold the chain's native token (ETH, MATIC) for fees. No sponsorship or ERC-20 payments without complex, custom relayers.
Limited Wallet Features: EOAs cannot natively implement transaction batching, security modules, or recovery mechanisms. This pushes complexity and risk onto the user.
pros-cons-b
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) vs. Sequential EOA Transactions
Pros and Cons: Sequential EOA Transactions
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for architects choosing between native EOA execution and ERC-4337 account abstraction.
01
Sequential EOA: Predictable Cost & Latency
Deterministic gas fees: Each transaction's cost is known and paid upfront in the native token (ETH, MATIC). This is critical for high-frequency trading bots and protocols with fixed operational budgets where cost predictability is non-negotiable. No reliance on third-party bundlers or paymasters.
02
Sequential EOA: Universal Compatibility
Maximum tooling support: Works with every existing wallet (MetaMask, Rabby), explorer (Etherscan), and RPC provider without modification. This matters for integrating legacy systems or building for a broad, non-technical user base that expects standard wallet behavior. No need for smart contract wallet deployment.
03
Batch Transactions (UserOps): Atomic Multi-Operation
Single transaction, multiple actions: Execute a swap, stake, and claim rewards in one atomic bundle via ERC-4337. This eliminates front-running risk between steps and is essential for complex DeFi strategies and improving UX for dApp onboarding flows. Failed steps can revert the entire bundle, protecting user funds.
04
Batch Transactions (UserOps): Sponsored Gas & Flexibility
Gas abstraction via paymasters: Users can pay fees in ERC-20 tokens (USDC) or have them sponsored by dApps, removing the need for native gas tokens. This is a game-changer for mass adoption and onboarding users from non-crypto ecosystems. Enables session keys and social recovery without exposing seed phrases.
05
Sequential EOA: Lower Overhead & Complexity
Simpler client-side logic: No need to integrate with Bundlers, estimate UserOp gas, or handle paymaster dependencies. This reduces development and maintenance overhead for teams building simple applications like NFT minting sites or basic token transfers where batch benefits don't justify the added complexity.
06
Batch Transactions (UserOps): Enhanced Security Posture
Programmable security policies: Set spending limits, whitelist destinations, and implement multi-factor authentication at the smart account level. This provides superior protection against phishing and sim-swap attacks compared to EOAs, making it the preferred choice for institutional custody solutions and high-value user accounts.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: Decision Guide by Use Case
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) for DeFi
Verdict: The superior choice for advanced DeFi UX and composability. Strengths: Enables sponsored transactions (gasless onboarding), atomic multi-step operations (e.g., approve+swap+stake in one click), and session keys for seamless interactions. Protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound see higher engagement when integrated with ERC-4337 Account Abstraction via bundlers. This reduces user drop-off from multi-step flows.
Sequential EOA Transactions for DeFi
Verdict: Necessary for maximalists and low-level protocol development. Strengths: Direct control and predictability for core contract functions (e.g., governance, admin ops). Essential for building oracles (Chainlink), keepers (Gelato), or MEV bots where transaction ordering is manually managed. Lower abstraction overhead means no reliance on third-party bundlers or paymasters.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between batch and sequential transactions is a foundational architectural decision with major implications for user experience, cost, and security.
Batch Transactions (UserOperations) excel at optimizing for the end-user experience and enabling complex, atomic interactions. By bundling multiple actions into a single on-chain transaction, they abstract away gas management, enable social recovery, and allow for sponsored transactions. For example, protocols like Safe{Wallet} and Biconomy leverage this model to achieve ~40% lower effective gas costs for multi-step DeFi interactions by paying a fixed overhead once per bundle. This model is the backbone of ERC-4337 account abstraction, making it ideal for applications prioritizing mass adoption and seamless onboarding.
Sequential EOA Transactions take a different approach by prioritizing deterministic execution, maximal composability, and direct protocol control. This strategy results in the trade-off of placing gas management complexity on the user but guarantees that each action is independently verifiable and can be integrated by any tool reading the mempool. The entire DeFi ecosystem—from Uniswap swaps to Aave deposits—is built atop this model, with Ethereum Mainnet consistently processing 15-30 TPS of such transactions, demonstrating its battle-tested reliability and liquidity depth.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user experience, gas abstraction, and atomicity for complex dApp flows, choose Batch Transactions and build with ERC-4337 bundlers and paymasters. If you prioritize maximal composability, predictable state changes, and direct integration with the existing DeFi tooling ecosystem, choose Sequential EOA Transactions. For many forward-looking projects, a hybrid strategy is emerging: using EOAs for core liquidity operations while offering a batched, abstracted front-end via smart accounts to capture both worlds.
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