Solana Leads Ethereum Across All Chain Fee Windows in DeFiLlama's September 22 Snapshot

JitoSOLSolana (SOL) outpaced WETHEthereum (ETH) in chain fees across every measured window in DeFiLlama's September 22 snapshot: $1.10 million versus $649,423 over 24 hours, $5.93 million versus $3.09 million over seven days, and $23.58 million versus $12.04 million over 30 days. Ethereum burned more of its fee income in each window, a structural outcome of EIP-1559, not a sign of lower user demand.

Solana vs. Ethereum Chain Fees Across 24h, 7-Day, and 30-Day Windows

The gap widened at longer time horizons. At 30 days, Solana's $23.58 million was nearly twice Ethereum's $12.04 million, with the seven-day ratio in similar proportion at $5.93 million to $3.09 million. These figures represent what users paid to use each network's base layer, before accounting for how protocols distribute that income to validators or token supply.

One caveat attaches to the Solana totals. DeFiLlama's Solana adapter approximates base fees by multiplying total transaction count by 5,000 lamports per signature, a known simplification, since the protocol charges by signature rather than by transaction. Multi-instruction transactions carrying several signatures are undercounted by this method; simpler single-signature transactions may be overcounted. CryptoSlate noted the limitation in its September 23 report. DeFiLlama's Ethereum adapter also uses minimum effective gas price as a proxy for base fees, so both sides of the comparison are estimates.

Ethereum's Burn Lead Despite Lower Total Fees

The two networks route fees differently, and that distinction shapes the burn figures.

On Solana, the 5,000-lamport base fee per signature is split evenly: half burned, half to the block-producing validator. Priority fees pass entirely to the validator. On Ethereum, EIP-1559 burns the execution base fee and all blob fees outright; only validator tips bypass the burn. Because Ethereum's burn mechanism captures a larger share of each fee paid, it can return more to supply reduction even when generating fewer total fees.

Solana's fee composition shows why that matters in practice. In the week ending September 21, base fees (the only Solana fee type subject to a partial burn) accounted for under 14% of combined daily chain fees and Jito tips tracked by Solana Compass. Priority fees and Jito tips together made up the rest, and neither component is burned.

Per DeFiLlama, that gap in burn rates showed clearly across all three windows. On a 24-hour basis, Ethereum burned $226,298 against Solana's $117,138. The 30-day figures were close: Ethereum at $2.80 million versus Solana's $2.66 million. Over seven days, Ethereum's $761,849 narrowly exceeded Solana's $698,884.

App Fees Add to Solana's Network Activity Lead

The chain-level numbers exclude application-layer activity. DeFiLlama's September 22 app fee totals placed Solana at $18.2 million against Ethereum's $8.5 million over 24 hours, with app revenue of $7.7 million versus $1.9 million on the same day. App fees cover what users paid to interact with decentralized applications on each chain, primarily DEXes, lending protocols, and derivatives platforms, and sit on top of the base-layer fees counted in the chain comparison above.

What Fee and Burn Totals Cannot Settle

Market capitalizations on September 22 stood at $335 billion for Ethereum and $69 billion for Solana, per CryptoSlate's reporting on the snapshot, with prices of $2,744.99 and $117.98 respectively. The fee comparison sits against that valuation gap.

On Solana, validators capture priority fees in full, but how much of that income reaches staking token holders depends on each validator's commission rate and the specific liquid staking protocol involved. On Ethereum, fee burns reduce supply relative to what issuance adds, but whether net supply is falling depends on validator issuance in that same period, which the DeFiLlama table does not include.

The September 22 snapshot establishes fee generation leadership for Solana and fee burn leadership for Ethereum. Closing the economic comparison requires knowing issuance rates, validator commission structures, and how much of either network's fee income reaches token holders, none of which the fee table alone provides.