The score, by dimension
- the same for all 7
- #7 of 7 · best 21.0
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
- the same for all 7
Tick: the best in this ranking · Methodology v2026.11.1
0G DA
Data availability layer for AI workloads
#7 of all 7 worldwide41
- Rank
- #7 of all 7 worldwidere-runs: scores 41 and ranks #6–#7
- Your cost
- Not priced on this basis
- Evidence
- High4 of 4 criteria sourced
- Licence
- No MiCA record on file
- Freshness
- Read October 2026checked · re-read due
Check availability for your country
0G DA · docs.0g.ai. Provider links appear once we know which country you are browsing from: ChainChoice links to providers only where it serves in full.
Commission: This provider pays ChainChoice nothing for this link. Disclosure
Crypto products are high risk. Check the provider is authorised where you live before you deposit.
The verdict
0G DA is #7 of 7 published data availability layers; it scores 2/10 on security model actual, where the category best is 10. Its widest gap is published cost per mb: 1/10, where EigenDA scores 4. Choose EigenDA if published cost per mb matters most.
Is 0G DA right for you?
Look elsewhere if
- Verifiable published cost per MB1/10 here; EigenDA scores 4
- What actually secures the data2/10 here; Avail DA scores 5
- Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable2/10 here; Avail DA scores 5
- Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime2/10 here; NEAR DA scores 4
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best data availability layer shows where it lands for you.
What will 0G DA cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is 0G DA?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Entity: not verified. No hand-confirmed record on file ties 0G DA to the company that runs it, so this page cannot say which other products that company operates. Read the legal entity in its terms before you deposit. How we read the evidence
Open the evidenceIf it doesn’t fit, choose
Compare all 4- 4Avail DAIf security model actual matters most: 510 points above · stronger on security model actual (5 against 2)51
- 5EigenDAIf published cost per mb matters most: 45 points above · stronger on published cost per mb (4 against 1)46
- 6NEAR DAIf halt blast radius matter most: 4Level on score · stronger on halt blast radius (4 against 2)41
Provider at a glance
- Category
- Data Availability Layers
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- docs.0g.ai
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 41 out of 100 under methodology 2026.11.1, from the evidence read in October 2026.
For your setup
Find out if 0G DA fits you
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.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best data availability layerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why 0G DA ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (5.4 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
301+0.963.09#6/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-10-22302+1.925.010#6/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-10-22252+1.605.08#5/7
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-10-22152+0.964.010#6/7
Third party
Third party · read 2026-10-22Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind NEAR DA, #6 of all 7 worldwide, on the published score
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 41 and ranks #6–#7
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
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.
Verifiable published cost per MB 1 → 2 on its ladder · passes NEAR DA+141#7 → #6
What actually secures the data 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes NEAR DA+141#7 → #6
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes NEAR DA+141#7 → #6
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes NEAR DA+141#7 → #6
Smallest climb: verifiable published cost per MB 1 → 2 passes NEAR DA, #6.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Verifiable published cost per MB — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
- What actually secures the data — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- 0G markets DA as a component of an AI data platform, and the documentation reflects that: the DA-specific claims that a rollup operator would need to underwrite — mainnet throughput, price per MB, retention, halt behaviour, who slashes whom — are either absent or hedged. Treat it as pre-commercial for rollup DA until it publishes a price.
- What actually secures the data — 2/10. The docs cannot name their own security anchor: 'Validators use a shared staking mechanism where they stake 0G tokens on a primary network (likely Ethereum).' 'Likely' is doing load-bearing work in an official security description. DA nodes are also explicitly excluded from finality — they 'do not directly participate in the final consensus process'.
- Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable — 3/10. What the docs call sampling is node-side, not light-client-side: 'Rather than verifying all data, DA nodes sample portions of it, drastically reducing the data they need to handle.' That is a validator workload optimisation, not the trust-minimising DAS a rollup user runs. No guaranteed retention window is published: the DA deep-dive pays DA nodes through a DA Sampling reward lottery over an EPOCH_WINDOW_SIZE of '300 (about 3 months)', which guarantees nothing.
- Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime — 2/10. status.0g.ai redirects to an inactive Statuspage ('This page is currently inactive and can only be viewed by team members.'), and no uptime history or documented halt behaviour was reachable; the headline performance number is qualified as testnet ('on the Galileo Testnet'), so mainnet capacity under load is undocumented.
Competitive position
How 0G DA places on each criterion
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.
Against the leader
82 vs 41 · gap 41.0Why Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) ranks above 0G DA
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 (43.9) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisEthereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight4.121.0−43.9, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisEthereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)Points
Verifiable published cost per MB · w3019−7.68, worse
What actually secures the data · w3029−6.72, worse
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable · w2528−4.80, worse
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime · w1529−3.36, worse
Net4182−41.0≈
Your scenario
0G DA is not priced for this scenario
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.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Usage per month · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDTypical costNot statedFewer than 5 priced rows: no typical cost is named · 0 of 7 rows priced
Lowest fee, priced rowsNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the typical, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 2026
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.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #6 to #7 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 10 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 22 October 2026.
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Verifiable published cost per MBstrength 1 · weight 30Report an errorProvider's own page22 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.What actually secures the datastrength 2 · weight 30Report an errorProvider's own page22 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Sampling live + how long data stays retrievablestrength 2 · weight 25Report an errorProvider's own page22 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Blast radius if it halts + documented uptimestrength 2 · weight 15Report an errorThird-party page22 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by What actually secures the data · 30% (0G DA 2/10)Scored by Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable · 25% (0G DA 2/10)
- Liveness failure (0G DA 2/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime · 15%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Verifiable published cost per MB (30%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- No price for data availability appears on the 0G DA concepts page (fetched 22 October 2026). The page is throughput marketing: "With a demonstrated throughput of 50 Gbps on the Galileo Testnet, 0G seamlessly supports AI workloads". Cost is asserted only qualitatively: "DALs optimize how and where data is stored and made available, increasing data throughput and reducing latency while also minimizing associated costs." The DA deep-dive page (fetched 22 October 2026) lists BLOB_PRICE among "Admin adjustable parameters" with a default value of 0, and states "When users submit the metadata for a DA blob, they need to pay a fee in amount of BLOB_PRICE." A SERVICE_FEE_RATE_BP (default 0) is charged "as a proportion of the DA fees paid by the user". No token- or USD-denominated price per MB or per blob is published, and the DA node docs describe a testnet deployment only ("Currently, to run a DA Node on Testnet, users must stake 10 OG tokens").0G DA — official documentation ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USD0G DA — official documentation ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- No geographic restriction on the DA concepts, DA deep-dive or DA node pages read 22 October 2026. The Zero Gravity Labs, Inc. Terms of Service (0g.ai/terms-of-service, "Last updated: April 6, 2026", read 22 October 2026) cover "the website at 0g.ai, including all subdomains operated by or on behalf of the Company, our blog, documentation, developer resources, blockchain explorers, faucet services" and exclude anyone in Restricted Territories: ""Restricted Territories" means Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar (Burma), North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and the Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions of Ukraine". Those Terms govern the company's website and tools, not use of the DA protocol.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with 0G DA: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
8 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.11.1Score 41, #7 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.11.1, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt data_availability:zerog_da:2026.11.1:0e1a49bc18a0
Are you 0G DA? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.