Ethereum is the second largest cryptocurrency platform after Bitcoin, allowing developers to build decentralized applications (dApps) on top of its blockchain. However, high gas fees and slow transaction speeds on the Ethereum network have led to the creation of layer 2 scaling solutions like Polygon MATIC that aim to address these issues.
MATIC is a layer 2 scaling solution that works on top of the Ethereum blockchain to provide faster and cheaper transactions while still benefitting from Ethereum’s security. The key difference between MATIC and Ethereum is that MATIC transactions are processed on side chains before being settled on the Ethereum mainnet.
This article will compare MATIC and Ethereum across several metrics like scalability, transaction fees, adoption, security, and technology to determine if MATIC presents a viable alternative to Ethereum.
Scalability
One of the main benefits of MATIC is greatly improved scalability over Ethereum.
Ethereum is capable of processing around 15 transactions per second (TPS), which leads to network congestion and spikes in gas fees during periods of high usage. The Ethereum 2.0 upgrade aims to eventually bring scalability up to 100,000 TPS through sharding.
In contrast, MATIC currently achieves up to 7,000 TPS through its Proof of Stake side chains. It’s expected to eventually scale up to 100,000 TPS as the network develops further. This means MATIC has much higher throughput than current Ethereum, while matching Ethereum’s 2.0 theoretical scaling capabilities.
For reference, payment processors like Visa can handle up to 24,000 TPS. So MATIC offers scalability on par with the needs of global financial systems.
| Network | Transactions Per Second |
|---|---|
| Ethereum | 15 |
| MATIC | 7,000+ |
MATIC’s superior scalability makes it better suited than Ethereum currently for supporting large decentralized apps, financial transactions, and NFT minting/trading with minimal network congestion.
Transaction Fees
MATIC also has much lower transaction fees compared to Ethereum, making micropayments and frequent transactions more feasible.
The average Ethereum transaction fee reached as high as $70 in 2021 during peak usage times. Even during less busy periods, the average Ethereum transaction fee is around $10-20.
MATIC fees are well under $0.01 on average currently. Even with MATIC price surges, the transaction fees have remained low compared to Ethereum.
For users transacting small amounts regularly, or running dApps that require many on-chain transactions like games, MATIC provides a clear cost savings advantage.
| Network | Average Transaction Fee |
|---|---|
| Ethereum | $10-$20 currently (peaked at $70 in 2021) |
| MATIC |
MATIC’s negligible transaction fees make it much more practical for daily transactions and micropayments compared to Ethereum currently.
Adoption
Given its benefits, MATIC adoption has been rapidly increasing, even though Ethereum still sees higher usage overall.
As the first major smart contract platform, Ethereum has gained widespread adoption over the years. There are currently over 3,000 decentralized apps built on Ethereum, and over $50 billion total value locked into Ethereum DeFi protocols. All NFT marketplaces operate primarily on Ethereum as well.
However, MATIC adoption has steadily grown, with over 450 decentralized apps now built on top of MATIC. These include lending protocols like Aave, decentralized exchanges like Quickswap, and NFT marketplaces like OpenSea. There is currently $12 billion worth of assets on MATIC-based DeFi platforms.
While Ethereum has the first mover advantage, MATIC is quickly gaining traction due to Ethereum’s current limitations. If gas fees and scalability issues remain unresolved on Ethereum, MATIC could rival Ethereum in usage eventually.
| Network | Decentralized Apps | Value Locked (USD) |
|---|---|---|
| Ethereum | 3,000+ | $50 billion |
| MATIC | 450+ | $12 billion |
MATIC adoption and usage is increasing exponentially but still trails Ethereum significantly. However, MATIC offers advantages in usability that could allow it to close the gap.
Security
In terms of security, Ethereum currently has an advantage over MATIC due to its superior decentralization and hash rate.
Ethereum leverages proof-of-work based mining with high hash rates, making it very difficult and expensive to attack or manipulate the network.
MATIC uses a proof-of-stake consensus model that is more centralized in terms of the number of validators. This theoretically makes it more vulnerable to attacks compared to Ethereum currently.
However, MATIC inherits security from Ethereum since it periodically commits data and checkpoints to the Ethereum mainnet. The decentralized nature of Ethereum still protects final settlement of MATIC transactions.
As MATIC adoption increases, its security is expected to decentralize further as well. But for now, Ethereum appears more hardened against potential exploits and attacks.
| Network | Consensus Model | Hash Rate or Staking |
|---|---|---|
| Ethereum | Proof-of-Work | 900 PH/s currently |
| MATIC | Proof-of-Stake | About 100 validators |
For ultimate security, Ethereum has the edge over MATIC currently due to its more decentralized nature and higher hash rate securing the network.
Technology
Both Ethereum and MATIC leverage cutting-edge blockchain technology with some key differences.
Ethereum leverages smart contract functionality and the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) which allows developers to build and deploy decentralized applications. It currently uses a Proof-of-Work consensus but is progressing toward Proof-of-Stake with the Ethereum 2.0 Serenity upgrade.
MATIC uses a modified version of the EVM so it is compatible with Ethereum and allows for interoperability between the two networks. MATIC runs on an adapted version of Plasma framework alongside proof-of-stake consensus to achieve scaling.
MATIC technology is centered on leveraging layer 2 side chains that can inherit security from Ethereum while offering much faster and cheaper transactions. Decentralized apps on MATIC also have access to the Ethereum ecosystem.
Both platforms allow Turing complete smart contract functionality. But MATIC focuses on optimizing scalability as a layer 2, while Ethereum development aims to improve scalability at the base layer 1.
| Network | Technology Summary |
|---|---|
| Ethereum | – Smart contracts & EVM – Proof-of-Work currently, migrating to Proof-of-Stake |
| MATIC | – Adapted EVM for interoperability – Plasma framework & Proof-of-Stake side chains |
Both leverage cutting-edge technology but MATIC is specifically optimized for scalability using layer 2 side chain solutions.
Conclusion
Overall, MATIC appears superior to Ethereum in terms of scalability, transaction fees, and ready-for-market usability currently. However, Ethereum still leads when it comes to decentralization, security, and adoption due to its first-mover advantage.
MATIC makes tradeoffs in decentralization to achieve faster and cheaper transactions compared to Ethereum currently. But MATIC also inherits security from Ethereum due to periodic checkpoints.
As Ethereum 2.0 aims to improve scalability, it could match some of the advantages MATIC currently provides. But MATIC will also continue improving further.
For most everyday transactions and decentralized apps, MATIC appears better suited currently. Ethereum is still required for ultimate security guarantees however. MATIC may be able to stand on its own eventually but still benefits from Ethereum backing for now.
If Ethereum can resolve its scalability constraints and reduce fees to competitive levels, it would remove MATIC’s primary advantages. But until that happens, MATIC presents a compelling layer 2 solution for anyone needing scalability and low transaction costs in the Ethereum ecosystem.
The growth of layer 2 platforms like MATIC also takes some pressure off Ethereum developers, allowing Ethereum more breathing room to nail the challenging upgrades required to improve base layer performance.
For the foreseeable future, MATIC is likely to remain a crucial component in the broader Ethereum-based decentralized finance landscape, providing an essential layer 2 complement to Ethereum as it works toward a fully scalable and usable base layer protocol.