Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency
BridgesPolygon
Leads12.5 min
- rank
- #6
- samples
- 43provisional
Robinhood Chain
Trails17.3 min
- rank
- #8
- samples
- 13provisional
CCIP delivery
Polygonn/aRobinhood Chainn/a
Polygon vs Robinhood Chain
Polygon leads on 2 of 3 shared benchmarks, Robinhood Chain on 1. Polygon wins on Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency (12.5 min vs 17.3 min), Bridged TVL by chain ($3.62B vs $1.82B). Robinhood Chain wins on Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery (14.30 s vs 1.8 min). Data as of 2026-10-24 UTC.
Robinhood Chain
Robinhood is a US commission-free investing app with 25M+ funded accounts. It added crypto trading in 2018, launched its own L2 chain (Robinhood Chain) in 2025, and is the #1 most-reviewed financial app on the US App Store with nearly 5 million ratings.
Side by side measurements
Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery
BridgesPolygon
Trails1.8 min
- p99
- 18.1 min
- rank
- #13
- samples
- 189
Robinhood Chain
Leads14.30 s
- p99
- 1.7 min
- rank
- #2
- samples
- 1,229
LayerZero delivery
Polygonn/aRobinhood Chainn/a
Bridged TVL by chain: how much of a chain's capital came from somewhere else
Blockchains| Provider | Bridged TVL | Bridged share | 7d change | 7d vs peers | Native | Canonical | External |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polygon | $3.62B | 95.5% | - | 2.37% | $172.36M | $2.28B | $1.35B |
| Robinhood Chain | $1.82B | 79.7% | - | - | $464.95M | $639.58M | $1.18B |
View
Polygonn/aRobinhood Chainn/a
Bridged TVL is value secured by the chain's bridge, not value locked in its DeFi protocols; a chain can rank high on one and low on the other. The split is L2Beat's: canonical is escrowed on the host chain by the chain's own contracts, external came through a third-party bridge, native was minted here. Rows are the chains L2Beat tracks in its scaling summary; a settled L1 has no row by construction, not by omission. Size is not quality: a large balance says capital came, not that it stayed.
Stablecoin flow by chain: where dollars actually moved over 30 days
Blockchains| Provider | 30d change | Stablecoin float | Net 7d | 7d change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polygon | - | $3.31B | - | - |
| Robinhood Chain | 0.13% | $1.08B | - | - |
View
Polygonn/aRobinhood Chainn/a
Stablecoin float is where dollars are parked, not what they do. A chain can take in a billion that sits idle, and lose float to a single issuer redeeming. The figure is DefiLlama's chain-wide pegged-USD aggregate, every issuer combined; it does not separate a bridge inflow from a native mint, and a dollar bridged to an L2 counts on both chains, so rows are not additive. Read the net dollars with the percentage beside them: the same $400M is a rounding error on Ethereum and a doubling elsewhere.
Frequently asked questions
Polygon vs Robinhood Chain: which one is better?
Polygon and Robinhood Chain are compared on 4 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. Polygon leads on Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency. Robinhood Chain leads on Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery. See the live table on this page for every metric.
Which is faster on ccip delivery, Polygon or Robinhood Chain?
On the Fastest Chainlink CCIP source chain by end-to-end delivery latency benchmark, Polygon leads at 12.5 min (provisional) versus Robinhood Chain at 17.3 min (provisional). Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
Which is faster on layerzero delivery, Polygon or Robinhood Chain?
On the Fastest LayerZero source chain by end-to-end message delivery benchmark, Robinhood Chain leads at 14.30 s versus Polygon at 1.8 min. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.
How is the Polygon vs Robinhood Chain 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.