Introduction
We compare the layer 1 blockchain performance of six major platforms: Ethereum, Cardano, Solana, Avalanche, Algorand, and Internet Computer.
While scaling via layer 1 is critical, many projects (e.g., Ethereum, Cardano) also leverage layer 2 solutions (e.g., Arbitrum, Hydra) to enhance scalability without compromising security. This analysis focuses solely on layer 1 metrics, but remember: layer 2 adoption significantly impacts real-world usability.
Key Metrics for Comparison
1. Transactions Per Second (TPS)
- Measures how many transactions a blockchain processes per second.
- Theoretical vs. practical TPS often differs due to network conditions.
2. Time to Finality
- Duration for a transaction to be irreversibly settled.
- Varies by consensus mechanism (e.g., Solana: 12 sec; Avalanche: 1 sec).
Blockchain Performance Breakdown
Ethereum
- Theoretical TPS: 119 (optimal conditions).
- Practical TPS: ~14 (layer 1).
- Finality: ~15 minutes (2 epochs). Future upgrades (SSF) aim for seconds.
- Daily Fees: $9.6M (high demand).
👉 Ethereum’s roadmap targets faster finality
Cardano
- Theoretical TPS: 386.
- Practical TPS: ~2 (headroom for spikes).
Finality:
- Guaranteed: 12 hours (2,160 blocks).
- Practical: 2–25 minutes (context-dependent).
- Scalability: Hydra (layer 2) in development.
Solana
- Theoretical TPS: 65,000 (tested).
- Practical TPS: ~1,000 (excluding vote transactions).
- Finality: ~12 sec (31 confirmations).
- Upcoming: Firedancer client (boost speed/cost-efficiency).
Avalanche
- Practical TPS: ~15.5 (including subnets).
- Finality: ~1 sec (leader in speed).
- Note: Official TPS claims revised; lacks recent benchmarks.
Algorand
- Theoretical TPS: 6,000 (post-3.9 upgrade).
- Practical TPS: ~30.
- Finality: ~3 sec (instant per design).
- Fees: $0.0008/tx (ultra-low).
Internet Computer
- Theoretical TPS: 11,500.
- Practical TPS: ~6,000.
- Finality: 1–2 sec.
- Tradeoffs: Permissioned validators (less decentralized).
👉 Compare fees across L1 networks
FAQs
Q1: Which blockchain has the fastest finality?
A: Avalanche (~1 sec), followed by Internet Computer (1–2 sec) and Solana (~12 sec).
Q2: Why is Ethereum’s layer 1 TPS low despite high fees?
A: High demand congestions the network; layer 2 solutions (e.g., Arbitrum) alleviate this.
Q3: Is theoretical TPS a reliable metric?
A: No—real-world usage (e.g., Solana’s ~1,000 TPS vs. 65,000 tested) reflects practical limits.
Q4: Which chains prioritize layer 1 scaling over layer 2?
A: Solana and Algorand focus on base-layer improvements.
Q5: How does Cardano’s Hydra improve scalability?
A: It’s a layer 2 solution enabling off-chain transactions with layer 1 security.
Conclusion
No single blockchain is "best"—each optimizes for different goals (decentralization, speed, cost). Ethereum excels in security and layer 2 ecosystems; Solana and Avalanche lead in speed; Algorand balances low fees and finality.
Future upgrades (e.g., Ethereum’s SSF, Solana’s Firedancer) will further reshape the landscape. Always consider context when comparing chains.
For cost-efficient transfers, explore our guide to low-fee networks.
Sources
- Ethereum: Kiln.fi, Chainspect.app, Ethernodes.org
- Cardano: Cexplorer.io, Messari
- Solana: Solana Compass, The Block Research
- Avalanche: Snowtrace.io, AVAX Subnets
- Algorand: Algorand Metrics, Developer Docs
- Internet Computer: DFINITY Dashboard, ICP Explorer
### SEO Keywords:
1. Layer 1 blockchain
2. TPS comparison
3. Ethereum scalability
4. Solana performance
5. Avalanche finality
6. Algorand fees
7. Internet Computer decentralization