Of the multiple Layer 2 solutions to the Ethereum network, Polygon stand as one of the popular ones, cheap fees and high speed transactions are one of the major motives to choose it. But, how faster it really process blocks?

Task

• What is the average time between blocks on Polygon?
• What was the maximum and minimum recorded time between two blocks?
• How many transactions are done in a block on average?
• How do these numbers compare to L1 such as Flow or Solana, or other L2 such as Arbitrum or Optimism?"

Method

A variety of Networks, layer 1 and 2 will be retrieved from Flipside’s data.

• For Optimism blocks: optimism.core.fact_blocks

• For Solana blocks: solana.core.fact_blocks

• For Arbitrum blocks: arbitrum.core.fact_blocks

• For Avalanche blocks: avalanche.core.fact_blocks

• For Ethereum blocks: ethereum.core.fact_blocks

• For Polygon blocks: polygon.core.fact_blocks

• For Flow blocks: flow.core.fact_blocks

• For Near blocks: flipside_prod_db.mdao_near.blocks

• For Harmony blocks: flipside_prod_db.mdao_harmony.blocks

• For Algorand blocks: flipside_prod_db.algorand.block

  • flipside_prod_db.algorand.transactions to find tx per block.

  \

Tables will be analysed using primarily row number functions.

- BSC was left out due to its data being too scarce yet and the readings speak more about its incompleteness inside Flipside’s than any meaningful comparison.

• Osmosis also was left out due to me not being sure if it qualifies as a blockchain.

For starter, average time between blocks

Polygon gets seventh place, with its average of 2.24 seconds between blocks.

The slowest blockchain to process transactions would be Ethereum with its 19.38 seconds.

And the fastest would be Solana, with 0.6 seconds between blocks, like really fast.

So polygon in this case is not one of the fastest, nor compared to L1s like flow or near. And compared to Layer 2s like Solana, Optimism or Arbitrum.

But average is not all, what about median?

Yes, now, we know that average is a weak statistic, for that reason a clearer picture comes when we look for the median, the number which represents exactly where half the data is reached.

In this case, Polygon, takes a median of 2 seconds between blocks. Landing it between 5ft or 7th place given than Avalanche and Harmony also has 2 for median time between blocks.

The highest one would be Ethereum, with 10 seconds.

And the faster ones, would be Optimism and Arbitrum, both layer 2 with faster blocks processing than Polygon.

Near and Flow, both layer 1s, also process blocks faster than Polygon

So and adequate lecture would be to take both average and median into consideration.

Moving on, minimun and maximun time between blocks

Excepting for Polygon, with 2 seconds, and Ethereum with 1. All the other blockchains, layer 1s and 2s, have a minimun of 0 seconds. This corroborated with each blockchain explorer, there are in fact blocks that are processed at the exact same time.

And the maximun between blocks is somewhat problematic, not only would take into account for those offline moments in which each blockchain has ceased block processing, also there is the chance where Flipside’s data might not be full yet, in case of the lite tables.

But, if we were to take this numbers seriously, we would get that Polygon does have the lowest maximum difference between all chains. Meaning that at most, a user would have to wait 25 seconds between blocks.

Data might be skewed, but that is a damn good maximum number to have.

And how many transactions per block

Well, Polygon would get third place in efficiency with 74 transactions per block, in average.

First place would be for Solana, with 1,747 transactions per block, and no, thats not a mistake, Solana does tend to cramp a lot of transactions inside its block, reaching as high as 6000 transactions per block.

In last place would Optimism and Arbitrum, both programmed to process 1 transaction per block.

So, Polygon against L1s like Near, Algorand, Harmony, Avalanche performs better than all, except for Ethereum that moves twice the transactions per block, with 142.

And against L2s like Optimism and Arbitrum does much better, but it wouldnt be a fair comparison.

A table is down here with the gross numbers in case you want to take a closer look.

BSC data not ready for meaningful analysis

Osmosis data left out due to uncertainty in its categorization

You are entering the nerd zone

Bonus chart showing earliest record inside Flipside’s

Rankings:

1

Median time between blocks

1- Optimism

1- Arbitrum

3- Solana

3- Near

3- Flow

6- Avalanche

6- Harmony

6- Polygon

9- Algorand

10- Ethereum

Min/Max time between blocks

==Min==

Harmony, Near, Algorand, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Flow, Optimism, Solana = 0 second

Ethereum = 1 second

Polygon = 2 seconds

==Max:==

1- Polygon

2- Algoran

3- Optimism

4- Near

5- Flow

6- Solana

7- Arbitrum

8- Harmony

9- Avalanche

10- Ethereum

Avg Transactions per block

1- Solana

2- Ethereum

3- Polygon

4- Algorand

5- Harmony

6- Flow

7- Near

8- Avalanche

9- Arbitrum

10- Optimism

Avg time between blocks

1- Solana

2- Optimism

3- Arbitrum

4- Near

5- Flow

6- Avalanche

7- Polygon

8- Harmony

9- Algorand

10- Ethereum