The score, by dimension
- the same for all 15
- #14 of 15 · best 21.5
- the same for all 15
- the same for all 15
- the same for all 15
Tick: the best in this ranking · Methodology v2026.11.1
Polygon zkEVM
ZK rollup from Polygon
Historical#15 of all 15 worldwide41
- Rank
- #15 of all 15 worldwide
- Your cost
- Feed pending
- Evidence
- High8 of 8 criteria sourced
- Licence
- No MiCA record on file
- Freshness
- Read October 2026checked · re-read due
Historical verdict. The record carries a sunset date of 1 July 2026. The score is what the methodology produced from the evidence read at the time; it is kept so the ranking history stays auditable, not as a recommendation.
The verdict
Polygon zkEVM is #15 of 15 published L2 blockchains; it scores 0/10 on proof system, where the category best is 10. Its widest gap is forced withdrawals: 0/10, where the category best is 10.
Is Polygon zkEVM right for you?
Look elsewhere if
- Proof system0/10 here; Linea scores 10
- Withdrawals if the operator stops0/10 here; the category best is 10
- Ethereum data availability0/10 here; Linea scores 10
- Transactions if the sequencer censors you0/10 here; Manta Pacific scores 10
- EVM equivalence0/10 here; Linea scores 10
- Maturity & track record0/10 here; Linea scores 6
- Exit window before an upgrade0/10 here; the category best is 2
- Rollup stage0/10 here; Linea scores 3
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 Polygon zkEVM cost you?
Feed pending
- Your transactions a year
- 100
How safe is Polygon zkEVM?
- Evidence: verified8 of 8 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- Incidents1 dated incident on the verified record; the latest, shut down, 3 July 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
If it doesn’t fit, choose
Compare all 4- 12LineaIf proof system matters most: 1016 points above · stronger on proof system (10 against 0)57$1.74 a year · read
- 13Manta PacificIf censorship resistance matters most: 102 points above · stronger on censorship resistance (10 against 0)43$0.00042 a year · read
- 14BlastIf data on Ethereum matters most: 10Level on score · stronger on data on Ethereum (10 against 0)41
Provider at a glance
- Category
- L2 Blockchains
- Entity
- All 2 Polygon products
- Official website
- forum.polygon.technology
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 41 out of 100 under methodology 2026.11.1, from the evidence read in October 2026.
For your setup
Find out if Polygon zkEVM 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 zkEVM 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 Polygon zkEVM ranks #15
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (0.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
8 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
100+0.0010.010#14/15
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-10-01100+0.006.010#15/15
Primary
Provider page · read 2026-10-01140+0.0010.010#14/15
Third party
Third party · read 2026-10-0180+0.003.07#13/15
Third party
Third party · read 2026-10-01180+0.0010.010#13/15
Third party
Third party · read 2026-10-01100+0.000.02#5/15
Third party
Third party · read 2026-10-01180+0.005.010#10/15
Third party
Third party · read 2026-10-01120+0.0010.010#14/15
Third party
Third party · read 2026-10-01Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Blast, #14 of all 15 worldwide, on the published score
RobustnessNot scored on criteriait stopped operating on 2026-07-01, so its criterion scores are zeroed in the score and no move is computed
Evidence8 of 8 scored8 quoted, 8 with a source link
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Proof system — 0/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Withdrawals if the operator stops — 0/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Ethereum data availability — 0/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Transactions if the sequencer censors you — 0/10 against a category best of 10/10
- EVM equivalence — 0/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Maturity & track record — 0/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Exit window before an upgrade — 0/10 against a category best of 2/10
- Rollup stage — 0/10 against a category best of 7/10
Record watch-outs
- DO NOT DEPLOY OR BRIDGE HERE. The sequencer was sunset on 1 July 2026 and the network stopped producing blocks; withdrawals can no longer be processed through the bridge.
- IF YOU STILL HAVE FUNDS THERE, THE CLOCK IS RUNNING. Wallet-held assets auto-migrated to Ethereum L1 are claimable through Polygon's dedicated interface, and Polygon states "Assets will be considered abandoned after December 31, 2027."
- FUNDS LOCKED IN DEFI MAY BE UNRECOVERABLE. Polygon states that "Funds locked in DeFi protocols cannot be auto-migrated" and that "Once the sequencer sunset, transactions will no longer be processed, which will affect the functionality of all protocols" — the claim interface covers wallet-held assets, not positions inside contracts.
Competitive position
How Polygon zkEVM places on each criterion
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.
Against the leader
81 vs 41 · gap 40.0Why Arbitrum One ranks above Polygon zkEVM
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; a floor bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (55.9) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisArbitrum OneGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight0.021.5−55.9, 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
EVM equivalence · w10010−3.20, worse
Maturity & track record · w10010−3.20, worse
Ethereum data availability · w14010−4.48, worse
Rollup stage · w807−1.79, worse
Proof system · w18010−5.76, worse
Exit window before an upgrade · w1002−0.64, worse
Withdrawals if the operator stops · w18010−5.76, worse
Transactions if the sequencer censors you · w12010−3.84, worse
Net4181−40.0≈
Your scenario
Polygon zkEVM 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 · USDTypical cost$0.17Scroll, the middle of the 11 priced L2 blockchains · 11 of 15 rows priced
Lowest fee, priced rows$0.00035 · InkDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Ink
4 of 15 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the typical, 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.RobustnessNot scored on criteriano re-run describes this row
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 10 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 1 October 2026.
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
EVM equivalencestrength 0 · weight 10Report an errorProvider's own page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Maturity & track recordstrength 0 · weight 10Report an errorProvider's own page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Ethereum data availabilitystrength 0 · weight 14Report an errorThird-party page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Rollup stagestrength 0 · weight 8Report an errorThird-party page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Proof systemstrength 0 · weight 18Report an errorThird-party page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Exit window before an upgradestrength 0 · weight 10Report an errorThird-party page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Withdrawals if the operator stopsstrength 0 · weight 18Report an errorThird-party page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.Transactions if the sequencer censors youstrength 0 · weight 12Report an errorThird-party page1 October 2026…
Verified
The published strength matches the evidence cell and a source page is on file.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Polygon zkEVM 0/10): 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% (Polygon zkEVM 0/10)Scored by Proof system · 18% (Polygon zkEVM 0/10)
- Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Withdrawals if the operator stops · 18% (Polygon zkEVM 0/10)Scored by Transactions if the sequencer censors you · 12% (Polygon zkEVM 0/10)
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: no proof system (L2BEAT, read 2026-10-21: category Other, State Validation None). Sequencer sunset 3 July 2026. EVM: compatible (zkEVM Etrog). Mainnet: 2023. DA: off-chain since the 3 December 2025 migration to pessimistic proofs. Gas in ETH. Kept for asset recovery only.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: Polygon, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
Failure record
Incident timeline
Dated events at Polygon zkEVM 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 Polygon zkEVM.
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 Polygon zkEVM: 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 2026.11.1Score 41, #15 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 2026.11.1, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt l2_chains:polygon-zkevm:2026.11.1:605337edb114
Are you Polygon zkEVM? 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.