ChainChoice verdict

EigenDA

Data Availability LayersEntity EigenLayer · 2 productsCountry not set

#5 overall across 7 scored data availability layers. 36 points behind #1 Ethereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS). Scored 46 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 EigenDA ranks #5

Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (9.3 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

4+3.843.09#3/7Primary

3+2.885.010#5/7Primary

2+1.605.08#6/7Primary

2+0.964.010#6/7Primary

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

Margin−5behind Avail DA, #4

RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 44–47 and stays #5

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 EigenDA’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 4 → 8 on its ladder · passes Avail DA+453#5 → #4

What actually secures the data 3 → 7 on its ladder · passes Avail DA+453#5 → #4

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable 2 → 6 on its ladder · passes Avail DA+452#5 → #4

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime 2 → 9 on its ladder · passes Avail DA+752#5 → #4

Verifiable published cost per MB 4 → 0 on its ladder · 0G DA passes it−441#5 → #7

Smallest climb: verifiable published cost per MB 4 → 8 passes Avail DA, #4.

Strengths

Where it leads

1 from the score data

Record says best for

Verifiable published cost per MB — 4/10
What actually secures the data — 3/10

Tradeoffs

Where it trails

4 from the score data

Record watch-outs

Three things compound against small rollups. Min blob size is 128 KiB, so a 4 KB batch is billed as 128 KiB. Deposits into the PaymentVault are non-refundable. And the marketing headline of '100 MB/s' throughput on the overview page cannot be reached on-demand — the payments doc caps global on-demand dispersal at 131,072 symbols/second, which it labels '4mb/s', a 25x gap inside the vendor's own documentation.
What actually secures the data — 3/10. The security-model page states the trust assumption outright: 'To guarantee liveness, we currently rely on a trusted disperser that does not censor clients' blob disperser requests. We will soon introduce decentralized dispersal to remove this trust assumption.' The overview page contradicts this, claiming 'Dispersers can be run as decentralized service providers'.
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable — 2/10. No data-availability sampling: each validator is assigned a disjoint erasure-coded shard sized to its stake, and 'any set of operators collectively having a percentage γ of the total delegated stake is able to reconstruct the original blob'. Retrievability depends on operators serving shards, and the security-model page says 'We are actively developing the DAS protocol for EigenDA to address these limitations'. The EigenCloud Terms set a deletion deadline, not a retention guarantee: 'All data submitted to the EigenDA Service is subject to automatic and irreversible deletion after a period of fourteen (14) days', and 'The Covered Parties do not guarantee the continued availability or recoverability of any data submitted to the EigenDA Network or the EigenDA Service.'

Competitive position

Where EigenDA 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#5 / 77.0 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 EigenDA leads

Verifiable published cost per MB#3 / 7

Where it trails

What actually secures the data#5 / 7
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable#6 / 7
Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime#6 / 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

Avail DA#4 of 7 · score 51 · 5.0 points ahead

EigenDA leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB4 vs 2

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

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

Compare View verdict

0G DA#6 of 7 · score 41 · 5.0 points behind

EigenDA leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB4 vs 1
What actually secures the data3 vs 2

0G DA leads on

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable3 vs 2

Largest single reason EigenDA is ahead: published criteria (+6.0 display points).Scenario cost: 0G DA has no verified pricing for this scenario.

Compare View verdict

NEAR DA#7 of 7 · score 41 · 5.0 points behind

EigenDA leads on

Verifiable published cost per MB4 vs 1
What actually secures the data3 vs 2
Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable2 vs 1

NEAR DA leads on

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime4 vs 2

Largest single reason EigenDA is ahead: published criteria (+7.3 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 EigenDA

82 vs 46 · gap 36.0

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 36.0 to within rounding.

DimensionThisEthereum Blobs (EIP-4844 / PeerDAS)Gap share

Availability · 23% weight14.014.00

Published criteria · 35% weight7.021.0−36.4

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 · w3049−4.80

What actually secures the data · w3039−5.76

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievable · w2528−4.80

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptime · w1529−3.36

Net4682−36.0

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

For your setup

Find out if EigenDA fits you

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

EigenDA 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 4 · weight 30Report an errordocs.eigencloud.xyzProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

What actually secures the datastrength 3 · weight 30Report an errordocs.eigencloud.xyzProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Sampling live + how long data stays retrievablestrength 2 · weight 25Report an errordocs.eigencloud.xyzProvider's own page15 Sept 2026CurrentVerified

Blast radius if it halts + documented uptimestrength 2 · weight 15Report an errordocs.eigencloud.xyzProvider'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: Payments doc, rendered 2026-09-15 (plain HTTP clients get a Cloudflare challenge): 'Example: Initially, EigenDA team will set the price per symbol to be 0.4470gwei, aiming for the price of 0.015ETH/GB, or 2000gwei/128Kib blob dispersal. We limit the global on-demand rate to be 131072 symbols per second (4mb/s) and 30 second rate intervals'. Same page: 'A symbol is defined as 32 bytes'; users 'Deposit tokens permissionlessly for on-demand payments and/or negotiate reservations with the EigenDA team'; 'Users should be mindful in depositing as they cannot withdrawal or request for refunds from the current PaymentVault contract'; and the disperser 'validates payments by tracking each account's usage independently in its own database'. On-chain 2026-09-15: EigenDADirectory 0x64AB2e9A86FA2E183CB6f01B2D4050c1c2dFAad4 getAddress('PAYMENT_VAULT') = 0xb2e7ef419a2A399472ae22ef5cFcCb8bE97A4B05, whose pricePerSymbol() = 447000000 wei, minNumSymbols() = 4096, globalSymbolsPerPeriod() = 131072, globalRatePeriodInterval() = 30 and lastPriceUpdateTime() = 1744750295 (15 April 2025), so the 'Initially' price is the live one. Mainnet page: 'Min Blob Size 128 KiB', 'Max Blob Size 16 MiB'. Quickstart: 'funds deposited into the payment vault are non-refundable.' DERIVED at ETH $2,402.28 (CoinGecko 2026-09-15): 32,768 symbols x 0.447 gwei = 0.00001465 ETH = $0.0352/MiB (= 0.015 ETH/GiB). That is 2.4x Ethereum blobs at their median over blocks 25,982,517-25,983,541 ($0.0145/MiB). The minimum 4,096-symbol dispersal costs 1,831 gwei on-chain, not the '2000gwei/128Kib' the doc states. Reserved bandwidth has no public price.EigenDA — official documentation ↗ · 15 Sept 2026
Prices published in: USDEigenDA — 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: On-demand deposits are described as permissionless, but the EigenCloud Terms of Service bar 'Prohibited Persons', including anyone on U.S. sanctions lists or 'located or organized in any U.S. embargoed countries or region'. Those Terms cover the EigenDA Service and the Eigen Disperser, and they do not name the countries.

Legal entity on file: EigenLayer, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; 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 46, #5 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:eigenda_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.