Performance Analysis of 0G, Evmos, Kava, Bera, and Sei

Chain	Simple	ERC20	Uniswap
0G	769	369	164
Bera	910	638	224
Evmos	790	859	689
Kava	637	84	36
Sei	784	784	392

Key Observations and Insights

1. Cosmos+Ethermint vs. Cosmos+Beacon API+Geth/Reth

• 0G, Evmos, and Kava use Cosmos+Ethermint, where each Ethereum transaction is wrapped into a Cosmos transaction for consensus processing. This introduces additional overhead compared to directly processing Ethereum transactions in an EVM.
• Bera adopts Cosmos+Beacon API+Geth/Reth, wrapping an entire Ethereum block payload into a single Cosmos transaction. This significantly reduces the transaction load on the consensus layer, resulting in better performance across all test categories.

2. Sei's Unique Modifications

• Sei has extensively modified Cosmos, Tendermint, and Go-Ethereum. These deep changes make it fundamentally different from standard Cosmos chains like 0G, Evmos, and Kava. As such, Sei's performance cannot be directly compared to other chains in this analysis.

3. Block Production in Cosmos+Ethermint

• Ethermint-based chains produce blocks based on Ethereum transactions' gas limits rather than gas used, as the Cosmos consensus layer cannot calculate gas used during block production. To prevent misuse of inflated gas limits, a minimum gas usage ratio (typically 50%, adjustable via consensus) is enforced.
• Evmos’ higher TPS in ERC20 and Uniswap tests is primarily due to its larger block size configuration, not inherent performance optimizations.

4. Performance Gap Between 0G and Kava

• 0G and Kava share similar block size configurations, but 0G achieves better TPS due to an improved estimateGas method. This enhancement allows for more accurate gas limit calculations, improving transaction processing efficiency.

5. Bera's Design Advantage

• Bera's use of block-level payload processing avoids the overhead of transaction-by-transaction consensus inherent in Ethermint chains. This architectural decision gives Bera a significant performance edge in all test scenarios.

Conclusion

The performance differences highlight the impact of architectural and implementation choices:

• Bera excels due to its block-level payload processing approach, which reduces consensus overhead.
• 0G demonstrates the advantages of refining critical components like estimateGas to improve transaction throughput.
• Evmos achieves high ERC20 and Uniswap TPS through increased block size, while Kava lags due to older CometBFT and less efficient gas estimation.
• Sei’s extensive customizations set it apart from other chains, making direct comparisons to standard Cosmos-based architectures inappropriate.