Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency
BridgesInjective
No data in window
Scroll
No data in window
Injective vs Scroll
Injective vs Scroll on 4 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks, awaiting live measurements.
Injective
Cosmos SDK L1 with a native onchain orderbook and EVM compatibility layer. CometBFT consensus, sub-second block time, deterministic finality per block. TokenFactory MsgCreateDenom carries a flat 0.1 INJ governance fee on top of gas.
Scroll
Native bytecode-equivalent zkEVM rollup. Sequencer cadence is prover-bound: empty periods see longer gaps between blocks while busy minutes produce blocks at a sub-3-second rate.
Side by side measurements
Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesInjective
No data in window
Scroll
Trails216.94 min
- p99
- 567.03 s
- rank
- #15
- samples
- 22
Fastest Hyperlane source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesInjective
No data in window
Scroll
No data in window
Fastest Axelar GMP source chain by end-to-end delivery
BridgesInjective
No data in window
Scroll
No data in window
Frequently asked questions
Injective vs Scroll: which one is better?
Injective and Scroll are compared on 4 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. See the live table on this page for every metric.
How is the Injective vs Scroll 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.