Maximal Extractable Value (MEV)—the economic gains block producers can extract by reordering, inserting, or censoring transactions—has become one of the most closely watched governance issues in the blockchain space. It is both a byproduct of on-chain economic activity and a core metric for evaluating blockchain security and fairness. Among MEV strategies, sandwich attacks stand out as the most representative malicious form, silently inflicting losses on ordinary users.
On April 8, 2026, the Solana network implemented a targeted patch addressing the key vulnerability that enabled simple sandwich attacks, prompting a reevaluation of public chains’ MEV defenses. Meanwhile, Ethereum is advancing the Glamsterdam upgrade centered on ePBS, aiming to restructure block production at the protocol level. The two chains are taking entirely different approaches—what are the pros and cons of their MEV defense strategies, and which better protects ordinary users? This article provides an in-depth comparison across four dimensions: attack landscape, defense mechanisms, governance logic, and evolution paths.
As of April 10, 2026, according to Gate market data, Ethereum (ETH) is priced at $2,189.47 with a market cap of $271.24 billion; Solana (SOL) is priced at $83.03 with a market cap of $47.72 billion.
Sandwich Attacks: Two Narratives on One Chain
The mechanics of a sandwich attack are simple yet ruthless: an attacker detects a pending user transaction, immediately submits a transaction in the same direction to push the price, waits for the user’s transaction to execute at the worsened price, and then executes an opposing transaction to capture the profit. Users bear the full price impact, while attackers pocket the difference.
On Ethereum, sandwich attacks exhibit a seemingly contradictory trend. According to exclusive EigenPhi data, the monthly extractable value from sandwich attacks fell from nearly $10 million at the end of 2024 to about $2.5 million by October 2025. However, attack frequency remained high, between 60,000 and 90,000 per month. This means "per-attack profits" have shrunk significantly, but attackers remain active. Surprisingly, around 38% of attacks target low-volatility pools, such as stablecoins and liquid staking tokens, creating unexpected slippage in scenarios users perceive as safe.
A more extreme event occurred on March 12, 2026: a trader attempted to swap roughly $50.43 million of aEthUSDT for AAVE via the Aave protocol. Due to insufficient liquidity, they faced slippage exceeding 99%, ultimately receiving only about $36,000 worth of AAVE. Titan Builder, an MEV builder, profited around $32–34 million from this single transaction via a sandwich attack.
On Solana, sandwich attacks evolved even more aggressively. In 2025, sandwich attacks drained over $400 million from DeFi users in the Solana ecosystem. Some malicious validators embedded sandwich attacks in up to 27% of their produced blocks, effectively turning block production into a private profit machine. However, by 2025, collaborative interventions by Marinade, Jito, and the Solana Foundation reduced profitability by an estimated 60–70%. The further patch on April 8, 2026, marked a milestone in Solana’s prevention of simple sandwich attacks.
Diverging Defense Mechanisms: Two Philosophies, Two Systems
Ethereum: From Market Outsourcing to Protocol-Level Integration
Ethereum’s governance path for MEV reflects a clear "market exploration first, protocol codification later" evolution logic.
Initially, Flashbots built off-chain block auction markets through MEV-Geth and MEV-Boost. Validators outsourced block construction to specialized builders, who competed to submit the most valuable blocks. This approach revealed two key issues: reliance on third-party relays and concentration of block-building power among a few entities.
To address these issues, Ethereum’s 2026 Glamsterdam upgrade introduces ePBS (Enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation, EIP-7732), separating proposers and builders at the protocol level. Block selection and bidding are executed automatically by the protocol, reducing dependency on third-party relays while enhancing transparency and censorship resistance.
Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin also proposed complementary mechanisms such as encrypted mempools and FOCIL. Encrypted mempools conceal transaction content to reduce the impact of malicious MEV strategies on ordinary users, while FOCIL ensures transaction inclusion rights, preventing a few builders from manipulating network neutrality through transaction ordering.
Notably, ePBS is not the endpoint. Research shows that builders may "abandon" promised blocks in high-volatility scenarios, causing live network risk from empty blocks. Builders with private order flow advantages may consistently win bids, shifting power concentration from validators to builders. These risks require ongoing monitoring after ePBS deployment.
Solana: Ecosystem-Driven, Rapid Iteration
Unlike Ethereum’s gradual protocol reforms, Solana’s MEV defense strategy emphasizes ecosystem collaboration and rapid iteration.
Approximately 95% of active Solana stake runs the Jito-Solana client. Jito uses a bundle mechanism for off-chain MEV bidding and revenue distribution: users submit atomic bundles to Jito’s block engine, paying small tips to incentivize validators to include transactions in order, preventing bot monitoring and attacks.
In 2025, Jito launched BAM (Block Assembly Marketplace), extending MEV defense from bundle bidding to a full transaction ordering infrastructure. BAM encrypts transaction info via trusted execution environments, provides verifiable ordering proofs, and allows developers to customize scheduling through plugins—all without changing Solana’s consensus layer. BAM cemented Jito’s central role in Solana MEV infrastructure, with all protocol fees flowing to the Jito DAO treasury.
On April 7, 2026, SOL Strategies acquired Darklake Labs for $1.2 million, gaining its zero-knowledge execution system Zyga, designed to enhance transaction privacy while preventing frontrunning and sandwich attacks.
Additionally, the Solana research team proposed the Constellation upgrade, aiming to fundamentally redesign transaction ordering. By coordinating multiple concurrent proposers (MCP) and witness nodes, the protocol limits single-validator control over ordering, processing transactions in fixed 50ms "economic ticks," with the goal of eliminating MEV conditions rather than redistributing profits. If implemented, this would represent Solana’s most disruptive MEV response.
Effectiveness Comparison: Who Protects Users Better?
To compare MEV defense effectiveness, consider attack scale, defense penetration, and revenue distribution fairness.
- Attack Scale: Ethereum’s monthly sandwich attack revenue dropped to ~$2.5 million (down ~75% from its peak). Solana’s annual 2025 attack revenue exceeded $400 million but declined 60–70% after ecosystem interventions. In absolute terms, Ethereum’s daily attack losses are lower, though both chains still face high attack frequencies.
- Defense Penetration: Ethereum’s private relays and protected RPC adoption is increasing, but tools are fragmented and lack unified protocol-level protection. Solana’s Jito covers ~95% of staked network, offering highly unified and mandatory defense—a clear advantage.
- Revenue Distribution Fairness: Ethereum’s ePBS transparently channels MEV to validators but does not directly protect users from sandwich attacks. Solana’s Jito system returns MEV revenue through staking rewards and provides proactive user/developer protection via bundles and BAM. Solana offers a more direct solution for user-level defense.
| Comparison Dimension | Ethereum | Solana |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation Layer | Protocol (ePBS scheduled) | Infrastructure (Jito-led, protocol exploration ongoing) |
| Defense Uniformity | Fragmented, requires user opt-in | ~95% of stake covered, highly unified |
| Sandwich Attack Scale | ~$2.5M/month (Oct 2025) | >$400M/year 2025, down 60–70% after interventions |
| Revenue Distribution | Validators via block bids | Bundle tips + BAM fees to Jito DAO |
| Roadmap | Protocol-level + reduce relay dependency | Zero-knowledge privacy + multiple concurrent proposers |
Who Is Leading in MEV Defense?
As of 2026, Ethereum’s strength lies in institutionalized reform. ePBS undergoes community discussion, testnet validation, and mainnet rollout—stable and predictable, if slower. Complementary tools like encrypted mempools and FOCIL support a multi-layer MEV defense framework.
Solana excels in execution speed and ecosystem coordination. From Jito Bundle to BAM, from vulnerability patching to Constellation proposals, Solana’s ecosystem demonstrates rapid response and iteration. Its defense directly addresses user transaction safety, with vulnerability fixes and zero-knowledge privacy enhancing real-time protection.
However, risks remain. Ethereum’s ePBS may shift power from validators to builders and faces live block risks. Solana’s heavy reliance on Jito introduces ecosystem single points of failure—any technical or governance issue could compromise MEV defense.
Looking to H2 2026, both chains face new variables. Ethereum’s Glamsterdam upgrade and ePBS deployment will
reveal real-world efficacy. Solana’s Firedancer client deployment may boost throughput but also enable more complex MEV strategies. Meanwhile, Ethereum L2 "Optimistic MEV" on Base and Optimism, consuming over 50% of on-chain gas via arbitrage contracts, extends MEV concerns to L2.
Conclusion
The MEV defense battle between Ethereum and Solana fundamentally reflects differences in governance philosophy and engineering approaches. Ethereum opts for slow but systemic protocol reform—institutionalized, multi-layered, predictable. Solana leverages ecosystem collaboration and infrastructure innovation for rapid, targeted solutions—flexible, efficient, user-centric.
As of April 2026, Solana has made more visible progress in immediate user protection, directly patching sandwich attack vulnerabilities. Ethereum is building a longer-term path—post-ePBS, the MEV ecosystem may undergo systemic reconstruction.
For DeFi users, the pragmatic approach is: leverage Jito and other MEV defenses on Solana, and monitor ePBS developments on Ethereum while setting slippage tolerances cautiously. For developers, MEV defense should be integrated into protocol design rather than treated as an afterthought. The MEV defense race between these chains is entering a new stage in H2 2026 and remains worth close attention.
