Introduction

The first L1 stablished network was Ethereum. However, it has received a lot of competeness during the last year. Some of the important competitors are Solana, Algorand among others. Both has grown a lot during the last months. Another important network that are scalling positions are Flow Blockchain.

Flow blockchain is a fast, decentralised, developer-friendly PoS-based blockchain from NFT pioneer Dapper Labs that aims to provide high scalability to the next generation of Dapps without the use of complex scaling techniques such as fragmentation.

Methodology

In this dashboard, we are gonna compare different metrics among the aforementioned blockchains. The main analyzed metrics are:

• Number of transactions and TPS
• Transaction success rates
• Number of unique wallets to make a transaction
• Transaction fees

Results

The first comparison was done for the number of transaction each network are processing. In this case, there is a lot of difference between Solana and others. Solana network are supporting around 30M of transactions each day, while the lowest numbers are detected in Flow, having between 200k and 1M of daily transactions.

In terms of transactions epr second (TPS) the same occured because it is linked to the numbrer of transactions. Then, Solana is the most prominent one with more than 300 TPS, while the rest shows similar numbers around 15. It is to say that Flow started with lower numbers but icnreased a little bit during the last days and reached similar numbers than Ethereum and Algorand networks.

In terms of success rate, we can see how Algorand and Ethereum network are the most optimal one having a success rate above 0.95, while Flow maintaned numbers above 0.90 until May 25th when the success rate started to fall down and becoming the worst one below Solana, that maintaned similar sucess rate transactions around 0.6.

In terms of active wallets, we can see how there is a competence between Solana and Ethereum network with around 400k daily users. It seems like Ethereum started in the top 1 but Solana surpassed it. On the other hand, ALgorand and Flow has lower numbers. Even Algorand shown 2x numbers compared to Flow during the first days (40k vs 20k), the number of unique wallets on Flow increased since May 20th reaching around 60k daily users, however it seems like the numbers decreased again to the previous values during the last days of the month while the Algorand numbers increased.

In terms of fees, we can see in the area image how the major part of the area is represented by Ethereum fees and then, the most of the fees are generated by Ethereum. However, it is to say that there are not the same number of transactions in one network than in the others. And then, to be able to compare the expensiveness between network we would need to calculate the average fees per transaction.

Conclusions and Key insights

In this dashbaord we have compared basic metrics between Flow and other L1 networks. Overall, we have seen how there is a lot of difference in the major of the metrics between Ethereum and Solana, and Algorand and Flow. However, looking at the trends, it seems like ALgorand and Flow are having some spikes during the last days that could lead a possible increment on the activity and metrics of these networks and a possible scalling to be closer to the Ethereum and Solana networks.

On the other hand, the most important insights extracted from the analysis have been the following:

• Solana shows the major number of daily transactions and in consequence has the highest TPS. The rest of the networks are similar to Flow.
• During the first days of May, the success rate of Flow was similar to Ethereum and Algorand having numbers above 0.9. But the rate suddently started to decrease below Solana numbers (around 0.6).
• Solana and Ethereum have the major number of daily active wallets. While Flow and Algorand are competing for the third position.
• The amount of generated fees is leadered by Ethereum with a great difference with the others. The lowest numebrs are shown by Flow.