ChainChoice verdict

Avail DA

Data Availability LayersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#4 overall across 7 scored data availability layers. 31 points behind #1 Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS). Scored 51 on the published 41–99 scale under methodology 2026.09.15, from the evidence read in August 2026.

Find my best

Availability not verified. Tell the explorer where you are and this verdict tests the record’s published market tags against it. An untested record is shown as not verified — never as available. Supported markets on record: Global. Set your country in the explorer

Why this rank

Why Avail DA ranks #4

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (12.2 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

2+1.923.09#5/7Primary

5+4.805.010#4/7Primary

5+4.005.08#4/7Primary

3+1.444.010#5/7Primary

Hairline = pool best · tick = pool median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero

Margin−19behind Celestia, #3

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 49–53 and stays #4

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 Avail 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.

What actually secures the data 5 → 1 on its ladder · EigenDA passes it−444#4 → #5

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable 5 → 1 on its ladder · EigenDA passes it−445#4 → #5

Strengths

Where it leads

1 from the score data

Record says best for

What actually secures the data — 5/10
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable — 5/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

4 from the score data

Record watch-outs

Avail is the only layer here that combines live light-client DAS with a completely unpublished price. Before committing, query dataAvailability_submitDataFeeModifier yourself and model it as a governance-mutable variable: the parameter that sets most of your DA bill can be changed by Avail governance without changing a single line of the pricing documentation.
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime — 3/10. No public status page: status.availproject.org had no DNS record on 15 September 2026, and the networks doc publishes only a binary 'Active' status with no uptime percentage or incident history. There is no way for a buyer to audit past halts.

Competitive position

Where Avail DA 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 / 714.0 of 20 · pool best

Published criteria#4 / 79.1 of 30 · best 21.0

Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · pool best

Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · pool best

Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · pool best

Where Avail DA leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.

Where it trails

Verifiable published cost per MB#5 / 7
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime#5 / 7

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.

Browse all 7

EigenDA#5 of 7 · score 46 · 5.0 points behind

Avail DA leads on

What actually secures the data5 vs 3
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable5 vs 2
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime3 vs 2

EigenDA leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB4 vs 2

Largest single reason Avail DA is ahead: published criteria (+5.5 display points).Scenario cost: EigenDA has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

0G DA#6 of 7 · score 41 · 10.0 points behind

Avail DA leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB2 vs 1
What actually secures the data5 vs 2
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable5 vs 3

0G DA leads onNo scored criterion

Largest single reason Avail DA is ahead: published criteria (+11.4 display points).Scenario cost: 0G DA has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

NEAR DA#7 of 7 · score 41 · 10.0 points behind

Avail DA leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB2 vs 1
What actually secures the data5 vs 2
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable5 vs 1

NEAR DA leads on

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime4 vs 3

Largest single reason Avail DA is ahead: published criteria (+12.7 display points).Scenario cost: NEAR DA has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

Why Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) ranks above Avail DA

82 vs 51 · gap 31.0

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 31.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisEthereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight9.121.0−30.9

Friction · 12% weight2.72.70

Trust record · 9% weight3.23.20

Measured data · 21% weight8.38.30

Published criterionThisEthereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)Points

Verifiable published cost per MB · w3029−6.72

What actually secures the data · w3059−3.84

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable · w2558−2.40

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime · w1539−2.88

Net5182−31.0

Compare with #1 Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)View verdict

For your setup

Find out if Avail 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 Avail 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.

3–5 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.

Your scenario

Avail 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

Usage per month · your input10

Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 Sept 2026.

your cost/yr

Pricing not verified

Under the default inputs · USD

Category medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced

Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter

Cost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.

7 of 7 rows in the pool have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.

Evidence

Evidence read 5 Aug 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

Public receiptsAvailable4 quoted with a source URL

Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness

Rank stabilityHoldsone point moves 1.9 display points

Coverage100%4 of 4 criteria scored

Freshness13 days agonewest read 15 Sept 2026 · current

Primary-source share100%4 of 4 sourced cells

Conflicts0file and table agree

The newest evidence read on the platform is 5 Sept 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 5 Aug 2026.

CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt

Verifiable published cost per MBstrength 2 · weight 30Report an errordocs.availproject.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

What actually secures the datastrength 5 · weight 30Report an errordocs.availproject.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievablestrength 5 · weight 25Report an errordocs.availproject.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptimestrength 3 · weight 15Report an errordocs.availproject.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

* category-wide reading date; the cell carries none of its own.

Facts

What the record publishes

facts, not scores

Pricing: Rendered 2026-09-15 (docs.availproject.org/docs/da/concepts/tx-pricing): 'Base fee: The minimum base amount attached to every single transaction. This is the constant whose current value is currently 0.124 AVAIL.' 'Weight fee = [Congestion multiplier * Weight of transaction]*[submitDataFeeModifier]'; 'Final fee = Base fee + Length fee + Weight fee + Tip(optional)'. Worked example: 'Base fee: 0.124 AVAIL (constant) / Length fee: proportional to ~512 bytes of encoded data / Weight fee: [1.0 * weight] * submitDataFeeModifier / Tip: 0 (optional)'. The value of submitDataFeeModifier is not printed. The docs say it 'can be adjusted when needed after going through Avail's governance process' and tell you to 'Go to the chainstate page of the Avail explorer' and 'Query the dataAvailability_submitDataFeeModifier method'. The only magnitude offered is that 'a 512-byte submission typically costs a fraction of an AVAIL token'. Turbo DA ('TURBO DA IS CURRENTLY IN PRIVATE BETA'; 'Access to Turbo DA is currently limited only to whitelisted users.') sells 'credits', measured in KBs/MBs, with no published credit price. Base fee at AVAIL $0.00206759 (CoinGecko 2026-09-15) = $0.000256 per submitData transaction.Avail DA — official documentation ↗ · 15 Sept 2026
Prices published in: USDAvail DA — official documentation ↗ · 15 Sept 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: Permissionless chain; no geographic restriction on the rendered DA docs pages. The Avail Mainnet Terms & Conditions (Avail Technology Limited, DIFC) apply 'BEFORE DOWNLOADING, INSTALLING, OR USING ANY NODE SOFTWARE OR OTHERWISE PARTICIPATING IN THE MAINNET', and their Acceptable Use Policy bars anyone 'located, domiciled or resident in, operating from, or incorporated or organised under the laws of a Sanctioned Country', defined by reference to US, UN, EU, UAE and UK sanctions, without naming countries. Turbo DA, the hosted fast path, is a whitelisted private beta reached via business@availproject.org, which is a product gate, not a country gate.

No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.

History

What the record carries

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.

6 methodology entries

5 Aug 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.09.15Score 51, #4 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
16 Sept 2026
2026.09.15
Dimension 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.
10 Sept 2026
2026.09.5
The published review cadence is now one the work actually keeps · platform-wide
- changed reviewCadenceDays 30 → 45 across all 119 category specs, and the two prose sites that quoted "the 30-day review cadence" in tokenised_bonds.
- changed check-review-cadence-is-kept ceiling 7 → 3, negative-tested: restoring a single 30-day promise over 49-day evidence takes it to 4 and fails the build.
- fixed Measured by regenerating rankings.json: no category changed order and no score moved, and the golden suite confirms it independently — across all 119 fixtures and 2,217 cases the only fields that differ are methodologyVersion and contentHash. A cadence is a claim about freshness, not an input to any ranking.
2 Sept 2026
2026.09.2
Twenty points that ordered nothing leave the total · platform-wide
- removed profileFit removed from the weighting. The published composite is now availability 20, objectiveFit 30, frictionFit 10, trustBonus 8 and quantitative 18 — 86 points, down from 106.
- fixed A stated priority for support raised profileFit, routing a visitor's answer into a dimension that could not move a result. It now raises frictionFit, where getting started and getting help are scored.
- changed Measured effect: 15 of 114 categories reordered and 3 changed leader (institutional_custody, payment_gateway, business_banking). Every one of the 36 swapped pairs sits within 0.02 points of 86 of its partner — products that were numerically tied before and after.
- changed The sensitivity analysis and the per-dimension breakdown no longer offer profileFit as a lever, since re-weighting a term that carries no weight cannot change an outcome. The breakdown still shows the number, labelled "shown, not scored".

Full methodology changelog

Methodology

How this verdict was produced

Methodology version: 2026.09.15 · last platform-wide change 16 Sept 2026
Data snapshot: Evidence read 5 Aug 2026
Last recalculated: At page build from the published inputs — the same run every visitor sees.
Published run: runWizardEngine(data_availability, defaults) · no visitor answers
Receipt id: data_availability:avail_da:2026.09.15:04ce91759ce4

What changed in this methodology version?

2026.09.15 · Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources

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.
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.
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.

How data availability layers are weighted Changelog

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.