L1 Blockchain Stacks: Avalanche vs Cosmos

Overview (TL;DR)

Recommended read: Gelato's Guide to Avalanche L1s and Native Interoperability

A comparison of Avalanche and Cosmos blockchain architectures, exploring various aspects from their consensus mechanism and interoperability solutions to real-world applications:

1. L1 Blockchain Stacks Comparison

   • How do Avalanche and Cosmos approach blockchain architecture?

   • What are the key differences in their ecosystem designs?

2. Comparing AvalancheGo vs. Cosmos CometBFT

   • What are the core consensus mechanism differences?

   • How do they approach validator participation?

   • What are their performance characteristics?

3. Interoperability Mechanisms

   • What is Avalanche's AWM (Avalanche Warp Messaging)?

   • How does Cosmos' Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) work?

   • What are the key differences in their cross-chain communication?

4. EVM Compatibility of Frameworks

   • How do Avalanche and Cosmos support Ethereum-compatible smart contracts?

5. Real-World Adoption and Use Cases of L1 Stacks

   • What specific applications have been built on these platforms?

   • How are Avalanche and Cosmos being used in different sectors?

6. Conclusion

   • How do Avalanche and Cosmos differ in their approach to blockchain development?

   • What are the implications for enterprise and institutional adoption?

   • How are Blockchain-as-a-Service (BaaS) solutions evolving?

L1 Blockchain Stacks Compared

Avalanche L1s vs. Cosmos L1s

Avalanche L1s and Cosmos both offer app-specific blockchains that scale horizontally with customizable rules, governance, and economics. The key difference is in how they structure their ecosystems and security models.

Cosmos operates as a loose federation of completely independent chains (zones) connected through the Inter-Blockchain Communication (IBC) protocol. Each zone must bootstrap its own validator set, security, and liquidity. However, with the introduction of Interchain Security, consumer chains can leverage the security of a provider chain (like the Cosmos Hub) without bootstrapping their own validator set. IBC Eureka extends IBC to non-Cosmos chains, starting with Ethereum, enabling direct Cosmos-Ethereum connectivity using ZK light client verification.

Historically, Avalanche required all validators to validate the Primary Network, which includes the C-Chain, P-Chain, and X-Chain. With ACP-77, validators can now validate specific Layer 1 (L1) subnets without needing to validate the Primary Network. This reduces operational costs and staking requirements significantly.

AvalancheGo vs. Cosmos CometBFT

AvalancheGo is the Go implementation of Avalanche and the backbone for its Primary Network and custom L1s.

CometBFT (successor to Tendermint Core) is a Byzantine Fault Tolerant (BFT) consensus engine used in Cosmos. It separates consensus from application logic through the Application Blockchain Interface (ABCI).

Native Interoperability Compared: AWM vs. IBC

What is AWM and Teleporter

AWM enables native, trust-minimized communication between Avalanche L1s using BLS multi-signature aggregation. Validators on the origin L1 collectively sign messages, verified by the destination subnet via the P-Chain’s registry. Teleporter builds on AWM, providing an EVM-compatible contract interface for ICM contracts.

What is IBC

IBC enables Cosmos chains to interoperate permissionlessly through CometBFT consensus. Its transport layer manages authentication and packet relaying via light clients, while the application layer defines token transfer logic and interactions. IBC can extend to ecosystems like Ethereum and Polkadot without shared consensus mechanisms.

How they differ

AWM leverages Avalanche’s P-Chain for validator registry, enabling low-trust communication without constant syncing. IBC requires local syncing and dedicated channels. AWM’s Teleporter incentivizes relayers, while IBC has no native reward system. AWM inherits Avalanche’s validator security, while IBC relies on trust between independent chains via light clients. AWM simplifies scaling, while IBC provides granular trust control.

EVM Equivalence

Avalanche’s C-Chain is EVM-compatible but not fully EVM-equivalent. Cosmos chains can use evmOS to achieve EVM compatibility, integrating Ethereum contracts and infrastructure into Cosmos SDK-based chains.

Adoption and Use Cases on Avalanche & Cosmos

Avalanche L1s enable optimized blockchains for specific use cases. For example, DeFi Kingdom Chain migrated from Harmony to Avalanche for DEX + NFT-based gameplay. Institutionally, Securitize issued tokenized securities in Europe via Avalanche.

Cosmos SDK’s flexibility allows projects like Berachain, an EVM-identical chain with Proof of Liquidity, and Initia, combining Cosmos SDK with optimistic rollups, to create appchain ecosystems.

Conclusion

Avalanche emphasizes enterprise and gaming through customizable high-performance L1s, while Cosmos focuses on decentralized, crypto-native innovation through IBC. Modular rollups like Celestia may challenge Cosmos’s value proposition. To stay competitive, Cosmos may need to target institutional adoption, like Noble’s stablecoin issuance, while Avalanche expands its institutional role. Future modular BaaS solutions will be key drivers for adoption.

Launch Avalanche L1s on Gelato BaaS

With application-specific chains proliferating, Blockchain-as-a-Service (BaaS) solutions are driving institutional adoption. Gelato enables streamlined deployment of Avalanche L1s, with automation and interop built-in. Get started today: raas.gelato.cloud.

For developers looking to integrate their applications with Gelato Web3 Services, check out Web3 Functions, Relay, and VRF. Join the Gelato Discord for support, and follow us on X for updates.