#6 overall across 7 scored data availability layers. 41 points behind #1 Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS). Scored 41 on the published 41–99 scale under methodology 2026.09.15, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (6.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
Each line is the ranking run again with one of 0G DA’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Smallest climb: verifiable published cost per MB 1 → 5 passes EigenDA, #5.
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale; a floor bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (42.4) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where 0G DA lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 Sept 2026.
7 of 7 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
Changes to published ranks and scores are recorded in a ledger, but this page does not chart that record yet, so no score line is drawn: history begins with the current verified snapshot. Below it, the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
Rankings, scores and Fit read no affiliate, payout, conversion or sponsorship data. This page's commercial note appears once, beside the outbound action, and is written by no component that scores.