Provider at a glance
- Category
- Sidechains
- Entity
- All 2 Polygon products
- Official website
- polygon.technology
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 73 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Polygon PoS
EVM chain checkpointing to Ethereum
Sidechains
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 sidechains in the published ranking
73
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Polygon PoS right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Finality and reorg behaviour7/10; the category best is 8
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Bridge custody control3/10 here; Gnosis Chain scores 5
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 sidechain shows where it lands for you.
What will Polygon PoS cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Polygon PoS?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Polygon PoS
Compare all 4- 1Gnosis Chain4 points above · stronger on bridge custody control (5 against 3)77
- 3SKALE Network4 points below · stronger on failure and halt record (5 against 4)69
- 4BNB Smart Chain4 points below · stronger on finality and reorg behaviour (8 against 7)69
For your setup
Find out if Polygon PoS fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Polygon PoS 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 sidechainNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Polygon PoS ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
353+3.363.05#2/7Loading evidence…
254+3.203.04#1/7Loading evidence…
254+3.204.05#4/7Loading evidence…
157+3.365.08#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Gnosis Chain, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 71–75 and stays #2
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 Polygon PoS’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.
Bridge custody control 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Gnosis Chain+278#2 → #1
Validator set concentration 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes Gnosis Chain+378#2 → #1
Documented failure and halt record 4 → 7 on its ladder · passes Gnosis Chain+378#2 → #1
Bridge custody control 3 → 1 on its ladder · SKALE Network passes it−269#2 → #4
Validator set concentration 4 → 1 on its ladder · SKALE Network passes it−368#2 → #4
Documented failure and halt record 4 → 1 on its ladder · SKALE Network passes it−368#2 → #4
Smallest climb: bridge custody control 3 → 5 passes Gnosis Chain, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Finality and reorg behaviour — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Bridge custody control — 3/10 against a category best of 5/10
Record watch-outs
- The largest escrow in this comparison sits behind a timelock whose delay is zero. Whoever holds the proposer role on 0xCaf0aa768A3AE1297DF20072419Db8Bb8b5C8cEf can swap the bridge implementation in one transaction, and that role cannot be enumerated from the contract.
Competitive position
Where Polygon PoS 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 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 79.8 of 30 · best 11.4
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Polygon PoS leads
- Bridge custody control#2 / 7
- Validator set concentration#1 / 7
- Finality and reorg behaviour#2 / 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.
Gnosis Chain#1 of 7 · score 77 · 4.0 points ahead
Polygon PoS leads on
- Finality and reorg behaviour7 vs 5
Gnosis Chain leads on
- Bridge custody control5 vs 3
- Documented failure and halt record5 vs 4
Largest single reason Gnosis Chain is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Gnosis Chain has no verified pricing for this scenario.
SKALE Network#3 of 7 · score 69 · 4.0 points behind
Polygon PoS leads on
- Validator set concentration4 vs 3
- Finality and reorg behaviour7 vs 3
SKALE Network leads on
- Documented failure and halt record5 vs 4
Largest single reason Polygon PoS is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: SKALE Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.
BNB Smart Chain#4 of 7 · score 69 · 4.0 points behind
Polygon PoS leads on
- Bridge custody control3 vs 2
- Documented failure and halt record4 vs 2
BNB Smart Chain leads on
- Finality and reorg behaviour8 vs 7
Largest single reason Polygon PoS is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: BNB Smart Chain has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
77 vs 73 · gap 4.0Why Gnosis Chain ranks above Polygon PoS
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 4.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGnosis ChainGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight9.811.4−4.2, 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 criterionThisGnosis ChainPoints
Bridge custody control · w3535−2.24, worse
Documented failure and halt record · w2545−0.80, worse
Finality and reorg behaviour · w1575+0.96, better
Net7377−4.0
Your scenario
Polygon PoS 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 28 September 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 · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone 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 median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #2 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Bridge custody controlstrength 3 · weight 35Report an error—28 September 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.Validator set concentrationstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—28 September 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.Documented failure and halt recordstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—28 September 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.Finality and reorg behaviourstrength 7 · weight 15Report an error—28 September 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
- Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Validator set concentration · 25% (Polygon PoS 4/10)Scored by Finality and reorg behaviour · 15% (Polygon PoS 7/10)
- Liveness failure (Polygon PoS 4/10): the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Documented failure and halt record · 25%
- Custody failure (Polygon PoS 3/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Bridge custody control · 35%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "On Polygon Chain mainnet, a minimum priority fee of 25 gWei is required." (Polygon Gas Station documentation, fetched 28 September 2026). That is a documented floor, not the live price: eth_gasPrice on polygon-bor-rpc.publicnode.com returned 255.149842885 gwei on 28 September 2026 (polygon.drpc.org returned the same figure), so a 21,000-gas transfer costs 21,000 x 255.149842885 gwei = 0.00535815 POL (worked example), about ten times the documented minimum.Polygon PoS — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDPolygon PoS — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Polygon PoS, Ethereum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
Legal entity on file: Polygon, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Polygon PoS: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 73, #2 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 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt sidechains:polygon_pos:2026.10.18:68e52ef68c13
Are you Polygon PoS? 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.