How Does Polkadot Compare and Compete Against Cosmos

Since the emergence of Bitcoin in 2009, there have been many different cryptocurrencies created. The most popular ones are Ethereum and Bitcoin, but these two currencies are not the only options for cryptocurrency enthusiasts.

Two new protocols to hit the market recently are Polkadot and Cosmos. Both blockchains were created with interoperability in mind, but they each uniquely solve this problem. This article will compare these two platforms to find out who might be the eventual winner!

How Does Polkadot Compare and Compete Against Cosmos

What is Polkadot?

Polkadot was created by the Web Developer and Ethereum Co-Founder Gavin Wood. Polkadot is a blockchain network that is designed to facilitate the interoperability of different blockchains. It does this by allowing different blockchains to be connected to each other, allowing for sharing of data and resources. This makes Polkadot a powerful tool for businesses looking to expand their operations into new blockchain networks.

Polkadot is also designed to be highly scalable, which means that it can handle a large number of transactions simultaneously. This makes it an ideal platform for businesses that are looking to launch new products or services.

Polkadot is also secure and reliable, meaning that businesses can trust it to handle their sensitive data. This makes it perfect for any enterprise that is looking to use blockchain technology. Polkadot supports many different blockchains, including proof-of-work chains like Bitcoin and proof-of-stake networks such as Cosmos.

How Does Polkadot Compare and Compete Against Cosmos

What is Cosmos?

Cosmos is a relatively new platform that combines blockchain interoperability with an internet computer to create a decentralized web. Cosmos supports many different blockchains as well, but it also has its own token that must be staked to run applications on the platform. Cosmos currently ranks behind Polkadot and is valued at roughly 25 USD per coin. It is, however, predicted for Cosmos to double in price in 2024.

One of the main goals of Cosmos is to make it easier for different blockchains to communicate with each other. In a world where Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and countless other blockchains exist, they must be able to work together to maximize their potential uses.

Cosmos accomplishes this by creating an internet computer that bridges the gap between public and private chains. This allows different types of chains to communicate without having to rely on their own means of security. For example, if someone wanted to move Bitcoin onto the Cosmos platform, they would be able to do so without worrying about it being compromised by an outside party.


Cosmos is sometimes referred to as a meta-chain because it creates new blockchains rather than simply supporting the ones that already exist. Cosmos accomplishes this through Tendermint, a blockchain consensus engine that allows different chains to work with each other under its umbrella.

It works by allowing anyone with 100 Cosmos tokens to create their blockchain on top of the Tendermint platform. This new blockchain is then able to communicate with other blockchains that have been created in this manner

Polkadot Vs Cosmos

Cosmos and Polkadot are nearly identical in many ways; both support smart contracts, scalability solutions, and interoperability between various networks. Except for their consensus algorithms.

The main difference between these two protocols is their approach to interoperability. Cosmos uses the Tendermint consensus algorithm while Polkadot uses a new protocol called “PARSEC” (Protocol for Asynchronous, Reliable, Secure and Efficient Consensus) that is still in development.

Both platforms support smart contracts, but Polkadot’s contracts will be Turing complete, while Cosmos’ contracts are not. This means that Polkadot can execute any contract, while Cosmos contracts are limited to those that a finite number of steps can verify.

Polkadot also has a unique scaling solution that allows it to handle more transactions than Cosmos. Polkadot’s scalability solution is called “Substrate”, while Cosmos uses the “Zilliqa” protocol.

Cosmos is attempting to build an internet computer that can connect with all of the different blockchains in existence. At the same time, Polkadot allows any blockchain to communicate with other chains through parachains and relay chains.

Another difference between these two platforms is their consensus mechanism. While most cryptocurrencies use proof-of-work algorithms like Bitcoin’s, Cosmos uses proof-of-stake. This means that instead of burning electrical power, holders of the token will be rewarded by gaining more tokens in proportion to their stake.


Both platforms have a governance model that allows token holders to vote on important decisions. However, Polkadot’s governance model is more complex than Cosmos’.In Polkadot, token holders can vote on proposals to add or remove validators, upgrade the protocol, and make other changes.

Cosmos’ governance model is more superficial. In Cosmos, token holders can vote to approve or reject changes to the protocol, but they cannot vote on proposals to add or remove validators. Cosmos is less lenient on voting, with token holders only able to vote yes or no on protocol upgrades.

Transaction Fees

Polkadot and Cosmos both charge a transaction fee for sending tokens between different blockchains. However, the fees are different. Polkadot charges a flat rate of 0.01 DOT per transaction, while Cosmos charges a fee that varies depending on the size of the transaction. Both platforms have a maximum block size of 10MB.

Transaction Speed

Cosmos’ transactions are faster than Polkadot’s, but Polkadot processes more transactions per second. Cosmos has a transaction speed of about 20-30 seconds per block, while Polkadot can process a small number of blocks per minute when it is in the “testnet/all-faucet mode” and can reach up to 100 tx/sec in “staging environment mode”. It will be able to scale up to thousands of transactions per second with sharding in the long term.

So, Which Platform Will Win?

It’s hard to say which platform will win in the long run. Polkadot has some advantages over Cosmos, such as its Turing complete contracts and Substrate scalability solution. However, Cosmos has a simpler governance model and lower transaction fees.

Cosmos is still relatively new, and it’s not clear which approach might win out over time — but one thing's for sure: interoperability between blockchains is here to stay.

It’s possible that both platforms will thrive and coexist peacefully for many years. However, it’s also possible that one platform will eventually emerge as the dominant player. Only time will tell which platform will come out on top.