Fastest Wormhole VAA finalization by source chain, live latency
BridgesInk
Trails7.50 s
- rank
- #6
- samples
- 7provisional
Optimism
No data in window
Ink vs Optimism
Split decision: Ink leads on Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery (43.93 s vs 1.0 min); Optimism leads on Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency (17.5 min vs 22.7 min).
Optimism
Optimistic rollup and the canonical OP Stack reference implementation. 2-second sequencer block time, 7-day fraud-proof window, anchored to Ethereum L1 via batch submissions to the Optimism Portal.
Side by side measurements
Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency
BridgesInk
Trails22.7 min
- rank
- #11
- samples
- 16provisional
Optimism
Leads17.5 min
- rank
- #8
- samples
- 3provisional
Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesInk
Leads43.93 s
- rank
- #8
- samples
- 27provisional
Optimism
Trails1.0 min
- p99
- 2.9 min
- rank
- #13
- samples
- 958
Frequently asked questions
Ink vs Optimism: which one is better?
Ink and Optimism are compared on 3 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Ink leads on Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery. Optimism leads on Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency. See the live table on this page for every metric.
Which is faster, Ink or Optimism?
On the Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery benchmark, Ink leads at 43.93 s (provisional) versus Optimism at 1.0 min. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
Which is faster, Ink or Optimism?
On the Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency benchmark, Optimism leads at 17.5 min (provisional) versus Ink at 22.7 min (provisional). Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the Ink vs Optimism 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.