Avalanche vs Cosmos Hub

Name: Avalanche vs Cosmos Hub OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Cosmos Hub leads on the only live benchmark. Cosmos Hub wins on Highest staking yield, live validator net APR across 7 PoS chains (9.80% vs 6.80%).

Read methodology Last measured Fri, 18 Sep 2026 04:41:48 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

Avalanche

Primary Network runs the Snowman BFT consensus derived from Snow protocols. Sub-second deterministic finality with no chain reorganizations.

Cosmos Hub

Side by side measurements

Highest staking yield, live validator net APR across 7 PoS chains

Blockchains

Avalanche

Trails

6.80 %

p99: 8.33%
rank: #2
samples: 100

Cosmos Hub

Leads

9.80 %

p99: 9.89%
rank: #1
samples: 180

Honest scope. (1) `net_yield = gross_apr × uptime`. NOT "yield net of MEV", Stakewiz `total_apy` already folds Jito MEV into gross, MEV is INCLUDED. `mev_share_bps` exists for transparency, not subtraction. (2) Solana median is dragged by ~42 vals at 0% APY (commission 100% or zero leader slots). (3) Hyperliquid: centralised sequencer, no separate MEV layer, ~30 vals only. (4) Ethereum: one network-average consensus-layer APR from the beacon spec formula, execution tips and MEV excluded.

Frequently asked questions

Avalanche vs Cosmos Hub: which one is better?

Avalanche and Cosmos Hub are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Cosmos Hub leads on Highest staking yield, live validator net APR across 7 PoS chains. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is cheaper, Avalanche or Cosmos Hub?

On the Highest staking yield, live validator net APR across 7 PoS chains benchmark, Cosmos Hub leads at 9.80% versus Avalanche at 6.80%. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the Avalanche vs Cosmos Hub 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.

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.