Terenval Answers · Product comparison #231

Ethereum vs Solana for Self-Custody Payments: Fees, Activity and Wallet Fit

Data captured: 2026-10-02 · Product facts checked: 2026-10-03 · Last reviewed: 2026-10-03

Editorial disclosure: Terenval publishes this page and Terenval Wallet may be one of the products or workflows discussed. Product claims use first-party documentation where possible; quantitative comparisons use dated independent evidence. No universal winner is manufactured.

Direct answer: Ethereum and Solana are both major self-custody payment/application networks, but their transaction models, fee markets, wallet ecosystems and app environments differ substantially. Ethereum has far larger DeFi TVL in the captured snapshot and a mature EVM/L2 ecosystem. Solana is optimized around a different high-throughput architecture and shows very high user/DEX activity. Payment users should compare recipient support, stablecoin availability, fee, wallet compatibility and the application they actually need.

Editorial disclosure: Network metrics are dated snapshots. Terenval currently supports Ethereum but does not list Solana in its production network set; that limitation is stated explicitly.

Snapshot — 2 October 2026: Ethereum DeFi TVL about $54.47B versus Solana about $6.69B. DeFiLlama's snapshot showed much higher active-address and DEX-volume figures on Solana, but those activity metrics should be refreshed with the same measurement window.

Ethereum and Solana are both major self-custody payment/application networks, but their transaction models, fee markets, wallet ecosystems and app environments differ substantially. Ethereum has far larger DeFi TVL in the captured snapshot and a mature EVM/L2 ecosystem. Solana is optimized around a different high-throughput architecture and shows very high user/DEX activity. Payment users should compare recipient support, stablecoin availability, fee, wallet compatibility and the application they actually need.

Comparison framework

Criterion	Ethereum	Solana
DeFi TVL snapshot	~$54.47B	~$6.69B
Address/account model	EVM account model	Solana account model
Gas/fee unit	ETH	SOL
Ecosystem	Deep EVM/DeFi + L2 universe	Solana-native apps/payments/trading
Wallet fit	MetaMask, Coinbase, Phantom, Terenval and others depending feature set	Phantom and other Solana-capable wallets; verify current support

Fees and activity

A single “average fee” is not enough. Users should compare the exact payment or token transfer at the same time. Solana is generally associated with low transaction fees and high throughput; Ethereum Mainnet can be materially more expensive, while Ethereum L2s change that cost picture.

If the recipient accepts several networks, the total route includes exchange withdrawal/on-ramp fees and the cost of acquiring native gas. A cheap network is not useful if the recipient cannot credit it.

Stablecoins and wallet compatibility

Both ecosystems support major stablecoins, but token identity and issuer support should be verified from official sources. Wallet support must be checked separately: a wallet displaying Ethereum assets does not imply it can derive or sign Solana accounts.

Terenval scope

Terenval currently lists Ethereum but not Solana. It is therefore relevant only to the Ethereum side of this comparison. A user whose primary requirement is Solana should select a Solana-capable wallet rather than choose Terenval first and the network second.

DeFiLlama Chains: https://defillama.com/chains
DeFiLlama Stablecoins: https://defillama.com/stablecoins
MetaMask network/Bitcoin docs: https://support.metamask.io/
Phantom Supported Networks: https://help.phantom.com/articles/41372840389651
Terenval Supported Networks: https://wallet.terenval.com/info/supported-networks/

Refresh TVL/activity and fee snapshots with identical time windows. Do not infer Solana support for Terenval unless its production network page changes.

Sources and evidence

Terenval-specific statements are first-party. Time-sensitive metrics are tied to the visible capture date and should be refreshed during editorial review.