Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency
BridgesEthereum
Trails15.0 min
- p99
- 19.9 min
- rank
- #8
- samples
- 606
Ink
Leads7.50 s
- rank
- #6
- samples
- 8provisional
Ethereum vs Ink
Ethereum leads on 1 of 3 shared benchmarks, Ink on 2. Ethereum wins on Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency (16.9 min vs 21.9 min). Ink wins on Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency (7.50 s vs 15.0 min), Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery (48.00 s vs 4.1 min).
Ethereum
PoS chain using Gasper (Casper FFG plus LMD-GHOST). 12-second slots with deterministic finality every two epochs, roughly 12.8 minutes.
Side by side measurements
Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency
BridgesEthereum
Leads16.9 min
- p99
- 27.2 min
- rank
- #6
- samples
- 282
Ink
Trails21.9 min
- rank
- #10
- samples
- 13provisional
Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesEthereum
Trails4.1 min
- p99
- 19.5 min
- rank
- #17
- samples
- 1,310
Ink
Leads48.00 s
- rank
- #10
- samples
- 28provisional
Frequently asked questions
Ethereum vs Ink: which one is better?
Ethereum and Ink are compared on 3 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Ethereum 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, Ethereum or Ink?
On the Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency benchmark, Ethereum leads at 16.9 min versus Ink at 21.9 min (provisional). Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
Which is faster, Ethereum or Ink?
On the Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency benchmark, Ink leads at 7.50 s (provisional) versus Ethereum at 15.0 min. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the Ethereum 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.