I read the whitepaper of Avalanche and they say that about Algorand :
Neither Algorand nor Conflux evaluations take into account
the overhead of cryptographic verification. Their evaluations
use blocks that carry megabytes of dummy data and present
the throughput in MB/hour or GB/hour unit. So we use the
average size of a Bitcoin transaction, 250 bytes, to derive
their throughputs. In contrast, our experiments carry real
transactions and fully take all cryptographic overhead into
The throughput is 3-7 tps for Bitcoin, 874 tps for Algorand
(with 10 Mbyte blocks), 3355 tps for Conflux (in the paper it
claims 3.84x Algorand’s throughput under the same settings).
In contrast, Avalanche achieves over 3400 tps consistently
on up to 2000 nodes without committee or proof-of-work. As
for latency, a transaction is confirmed after 10–60 minutes in
Bitcoin, around 50 seconds in Algorand, 7.6–13.8 minutes in
Conflux, and 1.35 seconds in Avalanche.
Avalanche performs much better than Algorand in both
throughput and latency because Algorand uses a verifiable
random function to elect committees, and maintains a totallyordered log while Avalanche establishes only a partial order.
Algorand is leader-based and performs consensus by committee, while Avalanche is leader-less.
Do you think it is true ? I thought latency was only 4.5s for Algorand.