ChainChoice verdict

Celestia

Data Availability LayersEntity not verifiedCountry not set

#3 overall across 7 scored data availability layers. 12 points behind #1 Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS). Scored 70 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 Celestia ranks #3

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (21.6 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

8+7.683.09#2/7Primary

6+5.765.010#3/7Primary

6+4.805.08#2/7Primary

7+3.364.010#3/7Primary

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

Margin−1behind Ethereum L1 Calldata, #2

RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–71 and ranks #2–#3

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 Celestia’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 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Ethereum L1 Calldata+171#3 → #2

What actually secures the data 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Ethereum L1 Calldata+171#3 → #2

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Ethereum L1 Calldata+171#3 → #2

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Ethereum L1 Calldata+171#3 → #2

Smallest climb: verifiable published cost per MB 8 → 9 passes Ethereum L1 Calldata, #2.

Strengths

Where it leads

1 from the score data

Record says best for

Verifiable published cost per MB — 8/10
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime — 7/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

3 from the score data

Record watch-outs

The 7-day light-node sampling window is shorter than Ethereum's ~18-day blob window, and Celestia's own docs warn that after that you are on your own: 'archival nodes serving requests for historical data for free is not guaranteed.' Budget for a paid archival provider or your own snapshot infrastructure before you model the $0.0118/MiB as your all-in cost.

Competitive position

Where Celestia 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#3 / 716.2 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 Celestia leads

Verifiable published cost per MB#2 / 7
What actually secures the data#3 / 7
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable#2 / 7
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime#3 / 7

Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.

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

Ethereum L1 Calldata#2 of 7 · score 71 · 1.0 point ahead

Celestia leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB8 vs 3

Ethereum L1 Calldata leads on

What actually secures the data10 vs 6
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime10 vs 7

Largest single reason Ethereum L1 Calldata is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Ethereum L1 Calldata has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)#1 of 7 · score 82 · 12.0 points ahead

Celestia leads onNo scored criterion

Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB9 vs 8
What actually secures the data9 vs 6
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable8 vs 6

Largest single reason Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) is ahead: published criteria (+12.5 display points).Scenario cost: Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS) has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Avail DA#4 of 7 · score 51 · 19.0 points behind

Celestia leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB8 vs 2
What actually secures the data6 vs 5
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable6 vs 5

Avail DA leads onNo scored criterion

Largest single reason Celestia is ahead: published criteria (+18.5 display points).Scenario cost: Avail DA has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

Against the leader

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

82 vs 70 · gap 12.0

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 12.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisEthereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight16.221.0−12.5

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 · w3089−0.96

What actually secures the data · w3069−2.88

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable · w2568−1.60

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime · w1579−0.96

Net7082−12.0

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

For your setup

Find out if Celestia fits you

The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Celestia 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

Celestia 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 stabilityCould climbone 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 8 · weight 30Report an errordocs.celestia.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

What actually secures the datastrength 6 · weight 30Report an errordocs.celestia.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievablestrength 6 · weight 25Report an errordocs.celestia.orgProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptimestrength 7 · weight 15Report an errorstatus.celestia.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: celestia-app parameters v9 spec (fetched 2026-09-15; the latest mainnet block header read from a Celestia node reports app version 9): blob.GasPerBlobByte 8; auth.TxSizeCostPerByte 10; minfee.NetworkMinGasPrice 0.000001 utia; MaxTxSize 8 MiB; consensus spec SHARE_SIZE 512 bytes. Docs (fetched 2026-09-15): fixed cost 'has a default value of 65,000 gas'; 'the first sparse share has 478 bytes, while all subsequent sparse shares have 482 bytes'. Live gas price, 2026-09-15: Celenium API {"slow":"0.004000","median":"0.004000","fast":"0.004000"} utia/gas, matched on-chain by the MsgPayForBlobs transactions in blocks 14,081,780 and 14,081,790 read from a Celestia node (fee / gas limit 0.004000-0.004011 utia). DERIVED, 1 MiB blob: 2,176 shares x 512 bytes x 8 gas + 65,000 = 8,977,896 gas x 0.004000 utia = 35,912 utia = 0.03591 TIA = $0.0118/MiB at TIA $0.3285 (CoinGecko 2026-09-15). That is 0.81x Ethereum blobs at their median over blocks 25,982,517-25,983,541 ($0.0145/MiB), 0.07x blobs at that window's fee spike ($0.163/MiB), and 0.37x blobs over the later blocks 25,983,956-25,984,979 ($0.0321/MiB). At the protocol floor of 0.000001 utia it would be $0.000003/MiB.Celestia — official documentation ↗ · 15 Sept 2026
Prices published in: USDCelestia — 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: Submitting blobs to the network is permissionless. The Terms of Service for the Celestia website and documentation (operated on behalf of Strange Loop Labs AG) exclude Prohibited Persons, including anyone located in U.S.-embargoed or 'terrorist supporting' countries, listed as the Crimea region of Ukraine, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and the so-called Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. Those Terms govern the website and docs, not use of the chain.

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 70, #3 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:celestia_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.