Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency
BridgesArbitrum
Trails14.2 min
- rank
- #8
- samples
- 11provisional
Ink
Leads7.50 s
- rank
- #7
- samples
- 32provisional
VAA finalization
Arbitrumn/aInkn/a
Arbitrum vs Ink
Arbitrum leads on 3 of 4 shared benchmarks, Ink on 1. Arbitrum wins on Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency (18.1 min vs 24.6 min), Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery (24.30 s vs 56.25 s), Bridged TVL by chain ($7.49B vs $369.36M). Ink wins on Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency (7.50 s vs 14.2 min). Data as of 2026-10-24 UTC.
Arbitrum
Optimistic rollup built on Nitro stack with a fast-finality sequencer. Sub-second block times (~250 ms) via a 250 ms default block interval, far below the 2 s OP Stack convention. 7-day fraud-proof window for L1 finality.
Side by side measurements
Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency
BridgesArbitrum
Leads18.1 min
- rank
- #10
- samples
- 27provisional
Ink
Trails24.6 min
- rank
- #12
- samples
- 40provisional
CCIP delivery
Arbitrumn/aInkn/a
Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesArbitrum
Leads24.30 s
- p99
- 26.8 min
- rank
- #5
- samples
- 1,463
Ink
Trails56.25 s
- rank
- #10
- samples
- 7provisional
LayerZero delivery
Arbitrumn/aInkn/a
Bridged TVL by chain: how much of a chain's capital came from somewhere else
Blockchains| Provider | Bridged TVL | Bridged share | 7d change | 7d vs peers | Native | Canonical | External |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrum | $7.49B | 74.3% | - | - | $2.59B | $3.33B | $4.15B |
| Ink | $369.36M | 100.0% | - | 0.30% | - | $54.42M | $314.94M |
View
Arbitrumn/aInkn/a
Bridged TVL is value secured by the chain's bridge, not value locked in its DeFi protocols; a chain can rank high on one and low on the other. The split is L2Beat's: canonical is escrowed on the host chain by the chain's own contracts, external came through a third-party bridge, native was minted here. Rows are the chains L2Beat tracks in its scaling summary; a settled L1 has no row by construction, not by omission. Size is not quality: a large balance says capital came, not that it stayed.
Stablecoin flow by chain: where dollars actually moved over 30 days
Blockchains| Provider | 30d change | Stablecoin float | Net 7d | 7d change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arbitrum | 1.55% | $3.74B | - | - |
| Ink | - | $150.79M | - | - |
View
Arbitrumn/aInkn/a
Stablecoin float is where dollars are parked, not what they do. A chain can take in a billion that sits idle, and lose float to a single issuer redeeming. The figure is DefiLlama's chain-wide pegged-USD aggregate, every issuer combined; it does not separate a bridge inflow from a native mint, and a dollar bridged to an L2 counts on both chains, so rows are not additive. Read the net dollars with the percentage beside them: the same $400M is a rounding error on Ethereum and a doubling elsewhere.
Frequently asked questions
Arbitrum vs Ink: which one is better?
Arbitrum and Ink are compared on 5 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Arbitrum leads on Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency. Ink leads on Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency. See the live table on this page for every metric.
Which is faster on ccip delivery, Arbitrum or Ink?
On the Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency benchmark, Arbitrum leads at 18.1 min (provisional) versus Ink at 24.6 min (provisional). Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
Which is faster on vaa finalization, Arbitrum or Ink?
On the Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency benchmark, Ink leads at 7.50 s (provisional) versus Arbitrum at 14.2 min (provisional). Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the Arbitrum vs Ink comparison measured?
Every benchmark on this page uses the same open methodology, published at https://openchainbench.com/methodology. Data is CC-BY-4.0. Measurement harnesses are MIT-licensed.
Related comparisons
How this pair was selected
Auto-generated pairs require: both providers in the same benchmark for seven consecutive days, at least 1000 samples per provider, observable third-party search demand, and a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. Editorially curated pairs (like this one) may publish early when search demand is high and data is accruing; panels with fewer than 100 samples are shown as provisional. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo.