Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency
BridgesCelo
Trails1050.00 min
- p99
- 1197.00 s
- rank
- #11
- samples
- 1
Ink
Leads10.00 s
- p99
- 14.90 s
- rank
- #7
- samples
- 2
Celo vs Ink
Celo leads on 1 of 2 shared benchmarks, Ink on 1. Celo wins on Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery (47.48 s vs 48.75 s). Ink wins on Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency (10.00 s vs 1050.00 s).
Side by side measurements
Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency
BridgesCelo
No data in window
Ink
No data in window
Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesCelo
Leads47.48 s
- p99
- 59.75 s
- rank
- #5
- samples
- 5
Ink
Trails48.75 s
- p99
- 59.78 s
- rank
- #7
- samples
- 3
Fastest Hyperlane source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesCelo
No data in window
Ink
Trails10.72 s
- p99
- 28.80 s
- rank
- #1
- samples
- 8
Frequently asked questions
Celo vs Ink: which one is better?
Celo and Ink are compared on 4 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Celo leads on Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery. 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 fastest layerzero source chain by end-to-end message delivery, Celo or Ink?
On the Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery benchmark, Celo leads at 47.48 s versus Ink at 48.75 s. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
Which is faster on fastest wormhole vaa finalization by source chain, live latency, Celo or Ink?
On the Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency benchmark, Ink leads at 10.00 s versus Celo at 1050.00 s. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the Celo 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.
How this pair was selected
A pair is published when all four conditions hold. Both providers run in the same OpenChainBench benchmark for at least seven consecutive days. Each provider has at least 1000 samples in the measurement window. The head to head query has observable third party search demand. Both providers have a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo so the methodology is externally verifiable.