Provider at a glance
- Category
- L2 Blockchains
- Entity
- All 3 Arbitrum products
- Official website
- nova.arbitrum.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 73 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Arbitrum Nova
Arbitrum Nitro chain in maintenance mode
L2BEAT: under review (read 21 October 2026). Scores here stand from ChainChoice’s last full read; the flag is shown, not scored. The source’s page · Rank when first seenL2 Blockchains
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 15 L2 blockchains in the published ranking
73
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Arbitrum Nova right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Withdrawals if the operator stops10/10, the category best
- Ethereum data availability10/10, the category best
- Transactions if the sequencer censors you10/10, the category best
- EVM equivalence10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Proof system6/10 here; Ink scores 10
- Maturity & track record8/10 here; the category best is 10
- Rollup stage3/10 here; Ink scores 7
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best layer-2 blockchain shows where it lands for you.
What will Arbitrum Nova cost you?
Feed pending
- Your transactions a year
- 100
How safe is Arbitrum Nova?
- Evidence: verified8 of 8 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- IncidentsNo dated entry in the records read on 1 October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Arbitrum Nova
Compare all 4- 4Ink3 points above · stronger on proof system (10 against 6)76$0.0048
- 5Unichain2 points above · stronger on proof system (10 against 6)75$0.011
- 7Scroll2 points below · stronger on proof system (10 against 6)71$0.18
For your setup
Find out if Arbitrum Nova fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Arbitrum Nova 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 layer-2 blockchainNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Arbitrum Nova ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (24.7 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 5 of 8.
8 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
1010+3.2010.010#1/15Loading evidence…
108+2.566.010#3/15Loading evidence…
1410+4.4810.010#1/15Loading evidence…
83+0.773.07#7/15Loading evidence…
186+3.4610.010#12/15Loading evidence…
102+0.640.02#1/15Loading evidence…
1810+5.765.010#1/15Loading evidence…
1210+3.8410.010#1/15Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Unichain, #5
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 8 criterion scores, the re-run scores 72–75 and stays #6
Evidence8 of 8 scored8 quoted, 8 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Arbitrum Nova’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.
Proof system 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Unichain+276#6 → #5
Rollup stage 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Unichain+375#6 → #5
Exit window before an upgrade 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes Unichain+375#6 → #5
Proof system 6 → 4 on its ladder · Scroll passes it−271#6 → #7
Withdrawals if the operator stops 10 → 8 on its ladder · Scroll passes it−271#6 → #7
Ethereum data availability 10 → 7 on its ladder · Scroll passes it−371#6 → #7
Smallest climb: proof system 6 → 8 passes Unichain, #5.
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Withdrawals if the operator stops — 10/10, the category best
- Ethereum data availability — 10/10, the category best
- Transactions if the sequencer censors you — 10/10, the category best
- EVM equivalence — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Proof system — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Maturity & track record — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Rollup stage — 3/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- Being wound down: the Arbitrum DAO's minimisation proposal moves Nova into "a minimized, maintenance-oriented state with reduced capacity and deprioritized support" and says "steps will be taken to help prevent additional user funds being bridged to Arbitrum Nova" (forum.arbitrum.foundation, posted 15 May 2026)
- Data now reaches Ethereum by sequencer configuration, not by contract: the committee members stay "dormant" onchain, "providing a path for potential future reactivation if ever required"
- Fraud proofs are limited to whitelisted challengers (L2BEAT state validation: warning), and L2BEAT rates Nova Stage 0
- Live L2 gas cost is feed-pending — verify current gas before acting; live TVL is shown for context (DefiLlama, dated), never scored
Competitive position
Where Arbitrum Nova leads and where it trails
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.
Availability#1 / 1514.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#6 / 1518.5 of 30 · best 21.5
Friction#1 / 152.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 153.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 155.5 of 18 · constant here
Where Arbitrum Nova leads
- EVM equivalence#1 / 15
- Maturity & track record#3 / 15
- Ethereum data availability#1 / 15
- Exit window before an upgrade#1 / 15
- Withdrawals if the operator stops#1 / 15
- Transactions if the sequencer censors you#1 / 15
Where it trails
- Proof system#12 / 15
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
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.
Unichain#5 of 15 · score 75 · 2.0 points ahead
Arbitrum Nova leads on
- Maturity & track record8 vs 2
- Exit window before an upgrade2 vs 0
Unichain leads on
- Rollup stage7 vs 3
- Proof system10 vs 6
Largest single reason Unichain is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: Arbitrum Nova has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Scroll#7 of 15 · score 71 · 2.0 points behind
Arbitrum Nova leads on
- EVM equivalence10 vs 6
- Maturity & track record8 vs 6
- Exit window before an upgrade2 vs 0
Scroll leads on
- Proof system10 vs 6
Largest single reason Arbitrum Nova is ahead: published criteria (+1.8 display points).Scenario cost: Arbitrum Nova has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Ink#4 of 15 · score 76 · 3.0 points ahead
Arbitrum Nova leads on
- Maturity & track record8 vs 4
- Exit window before an upgrade2 vs 0
Ink leads on
- Rollup stage7 vs 3
- Proof system10 vs 6
Largest single reason Ink is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Arbitrum Nova has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 73 · gap 8.0Why Arbitrum One ranks above Arbitrum Nova
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 — it reproduces the displayed gap of 8.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisArbitrum OneGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.521.5−7.8, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here5.55.5same
Published criterionThisArbitrum OnePoints
Maturity & track record · w10810−0.64, worse
Rollup stage · w837−1.02, worse
Proof system · w18610−2.30, worse
Net7381−8.0
Your scenario
Arbitrum Nova is not priced for this scenario
growthepie's median fee per transaction on the chain, the median of the last 7 daily medians, times your transactions, for a year. A median, not a fee schedule: a busy day, a heavy contract call or a deposit or withdrawal through Ethereum costs more. Excludes bridging to and from the chain. 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
Your transactions a year · your input100
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.
Feed pending
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$0.1811 of 15 rows priced
Cheapest priced$0.00044 · Manta PacificDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Manta Pacific
4 of 15 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 1 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.
8 of 8 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified8 of 8 criteria reconstruct from receipts
8 of 8 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…8 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
8/8 criteria scored, with 8 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #6 across every one-point re-run
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 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 1 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
EVM equivalencestrength 10 · weight 10Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Maturity & track recordstrength 8 · weight 10Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Ethereum data availabilitystrength 10 · weight 14Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Rollup stagestrength 3 · weight 8Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Proof systemstrength 6 · weight 18Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Exit window before an upgradestrength 2 · weight 10Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Withdrawals if the operator stopsstrength 10 · weight 18Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Transactions if the sequencer censors youstrength 10 · weight 12Report an error—1 October 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Arbitrum Nova 2/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Exit window before an upgrade · 10%
- Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Ethereum data availability · 14% (Arbitrum Nova 10/10)Scored by Proof system · 18% (Arbitrum Nova 6/10)
- Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Withdrawals if the operator stops · 18% (Arbitrum Nova 10/10)Scored by Transactions if the sequencer censors you · 12% (Arbitrum Nova 10/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Execution 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: EVM equivalence (10%), Maturity & track record (10%), Rollup stage (8%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Rollup: Optimistic (Nitro; data posted to Ethereum as blobs since 31 August 2026, AnyTrust committee dormant). EVM: equivalent. Mainnet: 2022. Gas in ETH. Maintenance-only under the 2026 minimisation proposal. Live gas feed-pending; TVL shown for context (L2Beat), not scored.L2Beat ↗ · 1 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDL2Beat ↗ · 1 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- unregulated
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- ethereum
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: Arbitrum, placed in 3 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
Failure record
Incident timeline
Dated events at Arbitrum Nova that a verified research record holds, newest first: the record’s own words, the date it gives, the source, and what ChainChoice’s read did where the record links the two.
Reading the incident record for Arbitrum Nova.
When an event that meets the extraordinary-review rule is found, the placement is re-read within 72 hours and carries a label until then. The timeline itself never moves a score. How reviews work
If something goes wrong with Arbitrum Nova: 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.
11 methodology entries
- 1 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 73, #6 of 15. 8 of 8 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.
- 1 October 2026
2026.10.1Layer-2 chains: an eighth criterion, a fast-exit requirement, and published friction rules- added l2_chains criterion sequencer_failure (12): 10 = forced inclusion through Ethereum within a day or a decentralised sequencer set rated good; 8 = forced inclusion after a longer delay; 5 = an L1 queue or log the sequencer must eventually process but cannot be forced to; 0 = no mechanism. 15 rows quoted from L2BEAT's API, matched by a live re-fetch on the read date (0 differences on any scored entry).
- changed l2_chains weights: proof system 18, withdrawals if the operator stops 18, Ethereum data availability 14, sequencer failure 12, exit window 10, EVM equivalence 10, maturity 10, rollup stage 8 (was 18/18/15/–/6/17/12/14). Three model runs proposed them (withdrawal safety, builder, minimal change) and a fourth, judging the three, set them; its exit window of 8 left the #1 resting on a 1.6-point margin that one one-point move in proof system or proposer failure would overturn, which the brief forbade, so exit window takes the safety lens's 10 and stage, which every lens found double-counted, gives 2.
- changed Published l2_chains order: the #1 does not change (Arbitrum One 81, OP Mainnet 80). Starknet rises from #10 to #8, Mantle from #12 to #10, and Linea falls from #9 to #12 because it has no forced inclusion. No other category moves.
- changed Find my best: "Fast, trust-minimised exit to Ethereum" removes every chain that is not a ZK rollup (structuralFacts.rollupType must be zk) and replaces the +2 for ZK rollups; it also no longer up-weights proof system and exit window, since the filter already decides what those weights leaned towards. The results page lists each removed chain with its reason under "Removed by your requirement", the coverage line and timeline count the removals apart from the country's, and the inputs table shows the answer as a filter (decision layer 1.1.0). The explorer's quick question applies the same requirement and says how many rows it removed. Replaying the 2,217 golden cases, one winner changes: that answer now leads to Scroll.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt l2_chains:arbitrum-nova:2026.10.18:e00cba53ba4e
Are you Arbitrum Nova? 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.