Skip to main content

Head-to-head · L2 Blockchains

Arbitrum One vs Manta Pacific Arbitrum One leads by 38 points.

Arbitrum One scores 38 points above Manta Pacific, led by proof system, forced withdrawals, and data on Ethereum. Arbitrum One ranks #1 and Manta Pacific #14 of 15 published L2 blockchains. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.

Arbitrum One81
Manta Pacific43
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #1 and #14 of 15
Methodology v2026.10.18Ranking snapshot Evidence verified through 8 published criteria5 score dimensions Receipt #cc-VS-ARBITRUM-ONE-VS-MANTA-PACIFIC-90311a06
Published verdictRanking snapshot 3 November 2026

Arbitrum One leads by 38 points

Arbitrum One scores 38 points above Manta Pacific, led by proof system, forced withdrawals, and data on Ethereum.

Arbitrum One #1 of 1581
Manta Pacific #14 of 1543
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 6 of 8 published criteria; Manta Pacific on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermArbitrum OneManta PacificWeightPoints
Proof system10/100/104.3+11.2for Arbitrum One+5.8 of 32
Forced withdrawals10/100/104.3+11.2for Arbitrum One+5.8 of 32
Data on Ethereum10/100/103.4+8.7for Arbitrum One+4.5 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 stage7/100/101.9+3.5for Arbitrum One+1.8 of 32
Net of the terms+38.4
Reproduced gap+38.5
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below8143+38.0

Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.

Quick facts

At a glance

2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactArbitrum OneManta Pacific
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
Security postureSnapshotOptimistic rollup; data availability: Ethereum L1 (EIP-4844 blobs).No proof system; data availability: Celestia (external modular DA).
From the published criteria

Which should you pick?

Arbitrum One

81#1 of 15
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Arbitrum One if proof system matters most — it scores 10/10 to Manta Pacific'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

Manta Pacific

43#14 of 15
Pick it when
Manta Pacific 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
Data availability is on Celestia (external modular DA), not Ethereum L1 — a different DA trust model to weigh
Self-identify in 10 seconds

Which one is actually for you?

Arbitrum OneLeads

Choose Arbitrum One if proof system matters most

  • Proof system: 10/10 against 0/10 for Manta Pacific (weight 18)
  • Forced withdrawals: 10/10 against 0/10 for Manta Pacific (weight 18)
  • Data on Ethereum: 10/10 against 0/10 for Manta Pacific (weight 14)
Manta Pacific

Manta Pacific 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.
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 out of 10
Manta Pacific10 out of 10

Track record

by 4 of 10weight 2.4 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One10 out of 10
Manta Pacific6 out of 10

Data on Ethereum

by 10 of 10weight 3.4 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One10 out of 10
Manta Pacific0 out of 10

Rollup stage

by 7 of 10weight 1.9 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One7 out of 10
Manta Pacific0 out of 10

Proof system

by 10 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One10 out of 10
Manta Pacific0 out of 10

Exit window

by 2 of 10weight 2.4 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One2 out of 10
Manta Pacific0 out of 10

Forced withdrawals

by 10 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Arbitrum One leads
Arbitrum One10 out of 10
Manta Pacific0 out of 10

Censorship resistance

weight 2.9 of 86Tie
Arbitrum One10 out of 10
Manta Pacific10 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 One14/20Manta Pacific14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Arbitrum One21.5/30Manta Pacific6.7/30
Arbitrum One leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Arbitrum One2.7/10Manta Pacific2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Arbitrum One3.2/8Manta Pacific3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Arbitrum One5.5/18Manta Pacific5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order

Choose Arbitrum One unless the term Manta Pacific leads on is the one you are buying.

Manta Pacific 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, Manta Pacific 0/10)
  • Verification failure: an invalid state or transfer is accepted.
    Scored by Ethereum data availability · 14% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Manta Pacific 0/10)
    Scored by Proof system · 18% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Manta Pacific 0/10)
  • Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.
    Scored by Withdrawals if the operator stops · 18% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Manta Pacific 0/10)
    Scored by Transactions if the sequencer censors you · 12% (Arbitrum One 10/10, Manta Pacific 10/10)
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%).
Questions

Frequently asked questions

Arbitrum One scores 38 points above Manta Pacific, led by proof system, forced withdrawals, and data on Ethereum. Published scores, out of 100: Arbitrum One 81 (rank 1 of 15 l2 blockchains), Manta Pacific 43 (rank 14 of 15).

Related pages

Go deeper

Trust & process
Individual reviews
Other comparisons
Written and reviewed by Founder
Reviewed Next review by Methodology v2026.10.18
How this page is reviewed

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.

Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.

How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money

Free advisorNo signup needed

Skip the comparison — get your best match

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 signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account

Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research