Arbitrum One vs Linea Arbitrum One leads by 24 points.
Arbitrum One scores 24 points above Linea, led by forced withdrawals, censorship resistance, and track record. Arbitrum One ranks #1 and Linea #12 of 15 published L2 blockchains. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Arbitrum One81
vs
Linea57
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #1 and #12 of 15
Arbitrum One scores 24 points above Linea, led by forced withdrawals, censorship resistance, and track record.
Arbitrum One #1 of 1581
Linea #12 of 1557
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termArbitrum One leads on 5 of 8 published criteria; Linea on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermArbitrum OneLineaWeightPoints
Forced withdrawals10/100/104.3+11.2for Arbitrum One+5.8 of 32
Censorship resistance10/100/102.9+7.5for Arbitrum One+3.8 of 32
Track record10/106/102.4+2.5for Arbitrum One+1.3 of 32
Exit window2/100/102.4+1.2for Arbitrum One+0.6 of 32
Rollup stage7/103/101.9+2.0for Arbitrum One+1.0 of 32
Net of the terms+24.5
Reproduced gap+24.4
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below8157+24.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Arbitrum OneScore 81Optimistic rollup with full EVM-equivalence, settling to EthereumStrength: EVM equivalence — 10/10Watch-out: Optimistic rollups carry a challenge/withdrawal window (about seven days) absent a fast-exit bridgeLineaScore 57Consensys-built EVM-equivalent ZK rollupStrength: EVM equivalence — 10/10Watch-out: Only whitelisted proposers can publish state roots, so withdrawals freeze if they stop (L2BEAT proposer failure: Cannot withdraw)
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactArbitrum OneLinea
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
Security postureSnapshotOptimistic rollup; data availability: Ethereum L1 (EIP-4844 blobs).ZK rollup; data availability: Ethereum L1 (blobs).
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Arbitrum One
81#1 of 15
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Arbitrum One if forced withdrawals matters most — it scores 10/10 to Linea's 0/10 there (weight 18).
Strength
EVM equivalence — 10/10
Tradeoff
Optimistic rollups carry a challenge/withdrawal window (about seven days) absent a fast-exit bridge
Linea
57#12 of 15
Pick it when
Linea leads Arbitrum One on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
EVM equivalence — 10/10
Tradeoff
Only whitelisted proposers can publish state roots, so withdrawals freeze if they stop (L2BEAT proposer failure: Cannot withdraw)
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
Arbitrum OneLeads
Choose Arbitrum One if forced withdrawals matters most
Forced withdrawals: 10/10 against 0/10 for Linea (weight 18)
Censorship resistance: 10/10 against 0/10 for Linea (weight 12)
Track record: 10/10 against 6/10 for Linea (weight 10)
Arbitrum OneScore 81Optimistic rollup with full EVM-equivalence, settling to EthereumStrength: EVM equivalence — 10/10Watch-out: Optimistic rollups carry a challenge/withdrawal window (about seven days) absent a fast-exit bridge
Linea
Linea leads Arbitrum One on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
LineaScore 57Consensys-built EVM-equivalent ZK rollupStrength: EVM equivalence — 10/10Watch-out: Only whitelisted proposers can publish state roots, so withdrawals freeze if they stop (L2BEAT proposer failure: Cannot withdraw)
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 8616 of 16 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
EVM equivalence
weight 2.4 of 86Tie
Arbitrum One10/10 out of 10
Linea10/10 out of 10
Track record
by 4 of 10weight 2.4 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One10/10 out of 10
Linea6/10 out of 10
Data on Ethereum
weight 3.4 of 86Tie
Arbitrum One10/10 out of 10
Linea10/10 out of 10
Rollup stage
by 4 of 10weight 1.9 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One7/10 out of 10
Linea3/10 out of 10
Proof system
weight 4.3 of 86Tie
Arbitrum One10/10 out of 10
Linea10/10 out of 10
Exit window
by 2 of 10weight 2.4 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One2/10 out of 10
Linea0/10 out of 10
Forced withdrawals
by 10 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One10/10 out of 10
Linea0/10 out of 10
Censorship resistance
by 10 of 10weight 2.9 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One10/10 out of 10
Linea0/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
Arbitrum One14/20Linea14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Arbitrum One21.5/30Linea12.1/30
Arbitrum One leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Arbitrum One2.7/10Linea2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Arbitrum One3.2/8Linea3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Arbitrum One5.5/18Linea5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Arbitrum One unless the term Linea leads on is the one you are buying.
Linea leads Arbitrum One on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Scored by Exit window before an upgrade · 10% (Arbitrum One 2/10, Linea 0/10)
Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.
Scored by Ethereum data availability · 14% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Linea 10/10)
Scored by Proof system · 18% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Linea 10/10)
Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.
Scored by Withdrawals if the operator stops · 18% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Linea 0/10)
Scored by Transactions if the sequencer censors you · 12% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Linea 0/10)
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: EVM equivalence (10%), Maturity & track record (10%), Rollup stage (8%).
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Arbitrum One scores 24 points above Linea, led by forced withdrawals, censorship resistance, and track record. Published scores, out of 100: Arbitrum One 81 (rank 1 of 15 l2 blockchains), Linea 57 (rank 12 of 15).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
