Introduction
Ethereum has long been the gold standard for smart contracts and decentralized applications, but scaling the network has proven to be complex. Usage has surged significantly since the L2 launched in 2015, and so too have costs, congestion, and delays.
Today, rollups are the de facto scaling solution, and Layer 2s like Optimism and Polygon are competing to make Ethereum faster and cheaper.
As of 2024, L2s had surpassed $51 billion in total value locked (TVL), proving they’re leading Ethereum’s evolution. Yet, from general users to developers, choosing the right L2 affects cost, speed, and access to opportunities throughout the wider DeFi ecosystem.
In this guide, we’ll break down how Optimism and Polygon compare and their key differences to help you find the best fit for your needs.
Optimism vs. Polygon: At a Glance
Both Optimism (sometimes referred to as “OP”) and Polygon are designed to scale Ethereum, but the practical differences lie in the technical architecture of each L2.
Optimism relies on optimistic rollups, which assume transactions are valid unless challenged and use a single-round fault-proof system for dispute resolution. Polygon, on the other hand, offers multiple scaling solutions, which include its widely adopted PoS sidechain and its zkEVM, a zero-knowledge (ZK) rollup that enhances security and efficiency through cryptographic proofs.
Optimism | Polygon |
- Est. 2019, mainnet launch in 2021. - Scalability via optimistic rollups + single-round fault-proof system. - Uses the Optimistic Virtual Machine (OVM) for Ethereum compatibility. - Superchain-built, aimed at interconnecting the L2 ecosystem | - Est. 2017 as Matic Network, rebranded to Polygon in 2021. - Scalability via PoS sidechain and zkEVM. - PoS operates independently with periodic Ethereum checkpoints, while zkEVM uses zk proofs for security and efficiency. - Supports multichain architecture. |
Optimism stays closely aligned with Ethereum through its OVM and evolving Superchain vision, while Polygon has expanded far beyond its 2017 origins as Matic. At the time of writing, Polygon leads in TVL with $925 million, compared to OP’s $440 million.
Polygon has processed 5.1 billion transactions, while Optimism has handled 557 million, highlighting the L2s higher network activity. With the Polygon 2.0 rollout ongoing, the network aims to unify liquidity across its ecosystem to strengthen its position in Ethereum’s scaling landscape.
Technical Comparison
While both Optimism and Polygon are rollups designed to scale Ethereum by reducing congestion and lowering transaction fees, they take different approaches to how they validate transactions.
Optimistic rollups assume (hence the optimism) transactions are valid unless challenged, offering strong Ethereum compatibility but requiring a seven-day challenge period for withdrawals. Zero-knowledge (ZK) rollups, like Polygon’s zkEVM, rather, use cryptographic proofs for faster finality and enhanced security (though they introduce more complexity under the hood).
The divide between optimistic and ZK rollups has fueled debates in recent years over which model is the superior solution to scaling Ethereum. Understanding these trade-offs is key to evaluating how Optimism and Polygon structure their ecosystems.
Architecture & Scaling Approach
Optimism is designed with a strong focus on Ethereum compatibility. It uses optimistic rollups, where transactions are assumed valid by default and only checked in case of disputes. The OVM allows developers to deploy Ethereum contracts on OP stack chains with minimal modifications.
Polygon takes a broader approach, offering both a PoS sidechain and zkEVM as scaling solutions. The PoS chain operates independently while periodically checkpointing to Ethereum, while the zkEVM leverages ZK proofs for faster finality and enhanced security. This dual model gives developers flexibility in choosing the best balance between speed, cost, and decentralization.
Security Models
Optimism uses a single-round fault-proof system, assuming transactions are valid unless challenged within seven days. If a dispute arises, the transaction is escalated directly to the Ethereum L1 for verification, ensuring security but delaying finality and incurring higher mainnet fees.
Polygon’s PoS chain relies on validators for security. While this is good for speedy execution, it comes with weaker trust assumptions than Ethereum proper. The Polygon zkEVM, by contrast, uses zero-knowledge proofs for trustless validation, eliminating fraud challenges. Although currently managed by Polygon Labs in beta, the zkEVM is planned to decentralize over time.
User Experience
While both Optimism and Polygon scale Ethereum by improving transaction costs, speed, and security, the user experience varies significantly. From gas fees to finality times, these differences impact everything from DeFi trading to NFT minting.
Transaction Costs & Speed
Optimism’s gas fees averaged ~0.10 Gwei in 2024, benefiting from batch compression and making it significantly cheaper than Ethereum. But because it posts full transaction data to L1, its fees are usually slightly higher than that of ZK rollups.
Polygon zkEVM averaged ~1.9 Gwei in 2024, making it more expensive than optimistic rollups due to the computational cost of generating zero-knowledge proofs. However, it offers stronger security and faster withdrawals by eliminating the need for fraud challenges.
Polygon’s PoS chain averaged ~122 Gwei in 2024, making it the most expensive of the group. Since it operates as a standalone Proof-of-Stake chain rather than a rollup, its fees fluctuate based on network congestion and validator dynamics.
Also, notably, both Optimism and Polygon are fully compatible with popular Ethereum wallets like MetaMask, making it easy for users to interact with Ethereum-based dApps, bridge assets, and seamlessly navigate these L2 ecosystems.
Withdrawal Times
On Optimism, withdrawals to Ethereum take seven days due to its fraud-proof challenge period. While this ensures security, it delays access for users bridging funds back to the mainnet.
Polygon’s PoS chain withdrawals typically finalize in a few hours. Its zkEVM leverages cryptographic proofs to settle transactions almost instantly, eliminating the need for fraud challenges.
Network Stability
Optimism offers strong network stability but, due to its fault-proof system, can experience delays in transaction finality during peak congestion. Transactions typically reach hard finality in ~13 minutes, relying on Ethereum’s finalization process. Withdrawals back to the mainnet are subject to the seven-day challenge period.
Polygon’s PoS chain transactions achieve near-instant finality, though Ethereum checkpoints occur every ~30 minutes for added security, and withdrawals are typically finalized within 2-3 hours. The zkEVM side follows a three-stage finality process: Transactions confirm on the L2 in 2-3 seconds, then batch and sequence, before achieving L1 finality on Ethereum in 15 minutes to three hours (depending on network activity).
Developer Experience
Since both Optimism and Polygon are designed to scale Ethereum, they offer robust developer experiences. However, their ecosystems differ in adoption, tooling, and integrations.
Ecosystem Stats
Optimism | Polygon |
- TVL: ~$440 million - Average transaction speed: ~16.65 TPS - Unique addresses: ~200 million | - TVL: ~$925 million - Average transaction speed: ~40.48 TPS - Unique addresses: ~505 million |
While Polygon leads in overall adoption and transaction volume, Optimism's Superchain vision and Ethereum-native focus have positioned it as a top choice for protocol developers.
Developer Tools & Support
Optimism provides solid developer support thanks to its strong Ethereum compatibility. Its close alignment with Ethereum's infrastructure makes it easy for Ethereum-first projects to deploy, but in some cases, it sometimes lacks the flexibility needed for more scalable, high-performance applications.
Polygon offers strong developer support with PoS, zkEVM, and CDK, providing flexibility for different scaling needs. PoS sees broad adoption, while zkEVM gains traction in DeFi and institutional finance. Its enterprise-ready tooling makes it ideal for brands integrating blockchain, though developers must weigh the trade-offs between its scaling models.
Both chains support builders through funding initiatives. Optimism funds public goods through its Retroactive Public Goods Funding, rewarding developers building Ethereum-aligned infrastructure. Polygon, meanwhile, plans to distribute 1 billion tokens over 10 years in ecosystem grants to attract builders.
Optimism vs. Polygon: Use Cases
Whether you're a user searching for the best network for DeFi, NFTs, or gaming, or a developer exploring scaling solutions, understanding the distinctions between Optimism and Polygon’s use cases is essential.
For DeFi
When it comes to DeFi, Polygon leads in liquidity and transaction volume (5.18 billion to OP’s 557 million), while Optimism prioritizes security and governance-first applications. The choice between the two depends on whether you prioritize deep liquidity or Ethereum-native security.
Optimism: Synthetix, a derivatives liquidity protocol, operates on OP, which benefits from lower fees and Ethereum compatibility.
Polygon: Aave, one of the largest lending protocols in DeFi, thrives on Polygon PoS due to fast execution times and minimal transaction costs, making it ideal for high-frequency lending and borrowing.
While Optimism has seen steady growth in DeFi TVL, Polygon, boasting a 22% higher TVL than OP (at the time of writing), has broader liquidity spread across DEXs, lending, and NFT marketplaces
For NFTs
Both Optimism and Polygon are working to expand their NFT ecosystems, offering users cost-effective alternatives to Ethereum’s mainnet. While Optimism is in its early stages, Polygon has established itself as the leading L2 for NFTs.
Optimism: Projects like Niftykit are emerging on OP, providing platforms to mint, manage, and sell NFTs with reduced fees.
Polygon: With OpenSea, DraftKings, and Magic Eden running on Polygon, it has become a go-to network for NFT trading. The PoS chain’s low fees and high throughput make it ideal for high-volume marketplaces and NFT trading. Meanwhile, zkEVM adoption is growing for premium NFT collections, as it offers stronger security guarantees and faster Ethereum finality.
For Gaming
In the gaming sector, high transaction throughput, low latency, and cost efficiency are essential for seamless player experiences. While Optimism is still developing its gaming ecosystem, Polygon has emerged as the go-to L2 for blockchain gaming due to its scalability, low fees, and strong developer adoption.
Optimism: Dope Wars, a community-driven gaming project inspired by hip-hop culture, operates on OP, leveraging its Ethereum compatibility for game development.
Polygon: Decentraland, The Sandbox, and Immutable all run on Polygon, leveraging its fast, low-cost PoS chain for in-game transactions and zkEVM for secure, high-value asset trading.
For Building
For developers, choosing between Optimism and Polygon depends on compatibility, customization, and long-term goals. Optimism prioritizes Ethereum alignment, while Polygon provides more flexibility for builders looking to optimize for cost, scalability, and/or security.
Optimism is built with full EVM equivalence, meaning Ethereum-native contracts deploy on OP without modifications. This is a win for developers already familiar with Solidity and Ethereum tooling. The OP Stack simplifies rollup creation, making it an attractive choice for projects looking to launch Ethereum-aligned L2s
Polygon provides a flexible framework, supporting PoS for cost efficiency and zkEVM for security-consciousness. The multichain Polygon ecosystem, although sans full EVM equivalence, incentivizes customization, attracting Ethereum-native and crosschain developers.
For Adoption
Both Optimism and Polygon are built for mass adoption, but each leans into its strengths with different trade-offs. While Polygon has positioned itself as the go-to L2 for enterprise and consumer-facing applications, Optimism’s Superchain is designed to create a more unified web3 ecosystem.
Optimism’s Superchain fosters a network of interconnected L2s that share governance, liquidity, and security. While not yet as prominent in the consumer sphere, the Superchain is particularly attractive for DeFi protocols and infrastructure providers that require secure interoperability, decentralized governance, and unified liquidity. These are all key factors for scaling adoption in regulated sectors.
Asset Interoperability
To extend your capital efficiency across Optimism or Polygon, you’ll first need to bridge your assets. As the L2 ecosystem expands, crosschain interoperability is becoming increasingly important. Of course, bridging isn’t always an easy process, because factors like speed, cost, and security all impact your user experience.
Bridging Options
Users typically have two primary ways to move assets between Ethereum, Optimism, and Polygon:
The first is via native bridges:
Brid.gg and Superbridge power the OP ecosystem, while the Polygon Portal facilitates asset movement on Polygon.
Optimism withdrawals can take up to seven days. Polygon withdrawals typically finalize in 2-3 hours.
This brings us to third-party bridges:
Protocols like Across offer faster withdrawals by using liquidity pools to facilitate instant swaps.
These services often offer cheaper fees and greater flexibility, allowing users to connect to multiple L2s and even alternative ecosystems.
Across, in particular, enables seamless crosschain interoperability, making it an ideal solution for users looking to bridge between Optimism and Polygon with greater efficiency.
While there are various bridging options available on both OP and Polygon, it’s important to remember that bridging costs vary depending on network congestion, bridge design, and transaction size.
Security Best Practices
Considering that bridges are one of the most targeted attack vectors in crypto, users should plan to take extra precautions when moving assets between L2s, such as Optimism and Polygon. Whether using native bridges or third-party solutions, security risks can vary based on bridge design, network congestion, and transaction size.
When bridging assets, be sure to:
Prioritize well-audited bridges with strong security track records (e.g., Across, with its robust security and a history of zero security incidents).
Verify contract interactions before approving any transactions to prevent malicious approvals.
Monitor transaction confirmations to ensure assets arrive safely on the destination chain.
By choosing reliable bridging solutions and following best security practices, you can confidently move assets between Ethereum, Optimism, and Polygon while minimizing risks and costs.
Enhanced Bridging with Across
By choosing the right bridge and following security best practices, users can confidently move assets between OP and Polygon while minimizing costs and risks. Across offers a fast, cheap, and secure way to bridge between these L2s, ensuring users can access the best opportunities across chains.
For a deeper dive, be sure to read our full bridging guides for Optimism and Polygon to learn how to get the most out of crosschain interoperability. But for a quick start, here’s a look at fees and bridging times between Polygon and Optimism on Across:
Fast, Cheap, and Secure Bridging with Across
Across offers a superior solution as the fastest and most cost-effective way to bridge assets between Optimism and Polygon. With Across, users benefit from low fees, robust security, and an industry-leading bridging experience with times that average:
L1→L2: 15 seconds.
L2→L1: 10 seconds.
L2→L2: 3 seconds.
Notably, Across typically completes bridging between Optimism and Polygon in just a few seconds, even when wrapping or unwrapping ETH is involved. While minor delays can occur during asset conversions, Across remains significantly faster than native bridges, which can take 15+ minutes or even seven days in the case of withdrawals.
What’s Next for Ethereum L2s?
As the L2 space evolves, OP and Polygon continue to develop unique strategies to enhance scalability, with both responding to the increasingly dynamic crypto landscape in different ways.
Optimism's Roadmap
Optimism is spearheading the Superchain, a network of OP Chains built on the OP Stack to unify security, governance, and interoperability across multiple L2s. By 2025, Optimism aims to strengthen crosschain communication through a Message Passing Protocol and ERC-7802, a standard designed for seamless token bridging between OP Chains.
Polygon’s Roadmap
Polygon is prioritizing modularity and interoperability through Polygon 2.0: An initiative that envisions a multichain ecosystem connected via an AggLayer. This framework aims to unify liquidity and enhance crosschain communication to create a seamless environment for users and developers.
Impact of Ethereum Upgrades
Ethereum’s EIP-4844 upgrade, introduced in March 2024 as part of the Dencun upgrade, significantly reduced Layer 2 transaction fees by enabling data availability. This already improved the scalability and efficiency of Optimism and Polygon, before the more recent Pectra upgrade, activated in May 2025, built on that foundation by increasing capacity, further reducing costs, and boosting L2 performance.
Additionally, Optimism and Polygon have been early supporters of ERC-7683: Ethereum’s universal standard for expressing crosschain intents. This standard enhances ecosystem interoperability by providing an open-sourced framework for developers who want to build protocols and applications with crosschain functionality. Now, over 70 projects (and counting!) support ERC-7683.
Both Optimism and Polygon are well-positioned to benefit from these advancements as time goes on. Optimism’s Superchain is building toward a unified L2 ecosystem, while Polygon’s modular architecture enables scalable, high-performance solutions across PoS, zkEVM, and the broader AggLayer framework.
Optimism vs. Polygon: Final Thoughts
As Ethereum’s scaling landscape continues to evolve, Optimism and Polygon have emerged as two of the most impactful L2 solutions currently available, with each taking a distinct approach to improving speed, cost efficiency, and interoperability.
Optimism prioritizes Ethereum-native security and governance, with its Superchain vision unifying rollups into a shared ecosystem. This makes it an excellent choice for developers and users looking for Ethereum-aligned DeFi and governance applications.
Polygon dominates in ecosystem diversity, providing scalability for gaming, NFTs, and enterprise adoption. With Polygon 2.0 and zkEVM, the network is expanding into a modular, multichain framework that aims to bridge liquidity and improve interoperability across Ethereum’s scaling layers.
Ultimately, choosing between Optimism and Polygon depends on whether you value Ethereum-first security (OP) or broad ecosystem flexibility (Polygon). Both networks are making Ethereum faster and cheaper while taking different approaches to get there.
However, no matter where you trade, stake, or build, you’ll need a reliable way to bridge assets across chains. That’s where Across comes in: offering faster, cheaper, and seamless crosschain transfers to help you move assets efficiently between Ethereum’s top L2s.
Ready to bridge? Try Across today.
