NEAR is one of the next gen blockchains, ensuring cheap fees and fast transactions looking to onboard a whole new generation of users and developers.

Task

• How does NEAR stock up to other L1s in terms of speed and performance?
• How fast is NEAR, and compare it with other blockchain speeds in terms of transactions per minute and percentage of transactions that fail.

Method

To look for performance, Flipside’s transactions table will be used.

• flipside_prod_db.mdao_near.transactions to find NEAR’s tpm.
• ethereum.core.fact_transactions to find Ethereum’s tpm.
• avalanche.core.fact_transactions to find Avalanche’s tpm.
• flow.core.fact_transactions to find Flow’s tpm.
• bsc.core.fact_transactions to find BSC’s tpm.
• flipside_prod_db.mdao_harmony.txs to find Harmony’s tpm.

Near fails a lot

I’m not gonna sugar coat it, Near fails almost 20% of the time while transacting. When taking into account the spike during Terra’s crash tho.

And when things were going wild during Terra’s crash, it got highly faily, almost reaching a 1:1 ratio.

But soon after it lowered, greatly, its transactions failed percentage.

In fact, if not were for Terra’s crash anomaly, NEAR success percentage would be higher.

And compared to BSC?

Better, but BSC tables are just being added to Flipside’s database, so we can only take a guess based on some loose '“General distribution theorem” which tells us that with more than 30 cases we can assume data percentages as representative.

All this to say that, at this point, counting just on the last half of June. BSC does have a higer succes/fail ratio than NEAR.

And to Ethereum?

Not good, Ethereum in the blockchain arena does have a low fail ratio. In fact, is almost the standard for a secure blockchain, even when Terra was going to cryptohell.

With almost 4% on fail transactions, Ethereum is the most secure blockchain from this analysis.

Also the one with the highest transactions per minute.

But, it might be hard to analyse considering that this approach doesn’t take into account speed of confirmations, more like uses during certain amount of times. So Ethereum' being one of the most popular blockchains gives it a different set of challenges.

How about with flow

Well, NEAR also performs worse than Flow, with less transactions and more fail attempts.

Flow does have a 13.3% of fail transactions though.

And it did perform relatively well during Terra’s crash, but during the end of May it started to fail. A lot. In fact, if not for that, flow would be one of the best performers in this review

And Avalanche?

It also performs better than NEAR.

With 10.8% of failed transactions, but, we also must have the same consideration than we did with BSC database, being also new in Flipside’s repository.

We can assume that Avalanche, while having a lower transactions going per minute than the other chains, does perform better percentually.

And Harmony?

Also better.

But, the same as the others new data tables, its activity it still being added up.

With the numbers we do have though we can say that Harmony does tend to fail less than NEAR. With almost a 7% less in transactions failed.

So, in TPM places we got:

1. Ethereum
2. Flow
3. Harmony
4. Near
5. Avalanche
6. BSC

And in Success/Fail %:

1. Ethereum
2. BSC
3. Avalanche
4. Harmony
5. Flow
6. NEAR

So, not looking too good for NEAR. Not while competing against more stablished, less failing blockchains.