ENS vs SNS: A Comprehensive Comparison of Ethereum and Solana Name Services

Introduction

In Web3, decentralized name services play a critical role in improving user experience. They turn complex wallet addresses, Ethereum’s 42-character strings or Solana’s base58-encoded keys, into simple human-readable names, much like the Domain Name System (DNS) did for the early internet.

Two projects dominate this space: the Ethereum Name Service ( ENS ), launched in 2017, and the Solana Name Service ( SNS ) , revamped in 2025 with a new token model. Both enable seamless transactions, dApp integrations, and decentralized websites. ENS offers maturity and deep integrations, while SNS focuses on speed, affordability, and community-driven adoption.

This article compares ENS vs SNS across history, mechanics, features, adoption, and future outlook to reveal their strengths, weaknesses, and impact on Web3 identity.

What is Ethereum Name Service (ENS)?

History and Development

ENS was conceptualized in 2016 and launched in 2017 as Ethereum’s decentralized naming layer. It expanded through DAO governance and tokenomics, with the ENS token airdropped in 2021. By 2025, ENS has over 600 integrations and remains a pillar of Ethereum’s ecosystem.

How ENS Works

ENS functions as a distributed, extensible naming system. When a user registers a name like alice.eth, it resolves to an Ethereum address. The system uses:

1. Registration: Auctions for premium names, or fixed-price fees.
2. Resolution: Wallets query ENS on-chain or through resolvers.
3. Renewal: Names expire after 1–5 years unless renewed.

Key Features

• Multi-chain compatibility (Polygon, Optimism).
• Metadata storage for avatars and IPFS-hosted sites.
• Delegable subdomains.
• Privacy through off-chain resolvers.
• Governance via DAO.

What is Solana Name Service (SNS)?

History and Development

SNS began in 2021 under Bonfida and rebranded in 2025 with a new SNS token, distributed through an airdrop to .sol holders. By late 2025, SNS benefits from Solana’s 22 million monthly actives and integrations with major wallets like MetaMask.

How SNS Works

SNS maps .sol domains to public keys, NFTs, or Arweave/IPFS links. The process involves:

1. Registration: Fixed-price minting or auctions for premium names.
2. Resolution: On-chain lookups via Solana RPCs.
3. Renewal: Annual renewals in SOL.

Key Features

• Gamified auctions and leaderboards.
• Unified identity for payments, NFTs, and dApps.
• Low-cost renewals ($1–5 yearly).
• Twitter handle claims via signed oracles.
• Governance with Snapshot voting.

Technical Comparison

ENS excels in security and cross-chain compatibility. SNS wins on speed, affordability, and ease of use.

Adoption and Usage

ENS maintains a strong lead with 1.35 million domains and 600+ dApp integrations, dominating Ethereum’s DeFi and social stack. SNS, while younger, has grown rapidly, registering ~600,000 domains by Q3 2025. Its retail-driven growth comes from gamified auctions and low fees.

ENS dominates in enterprise and DeFi, while SNS thrives in NFTs and payments.

Pros and Cons

ENS offers stability and depth. SNS provides affordability and experimentation.

Future Outlook

Looking ahead, ENS is expected to deepen Ethereum L2 adoption and expand to millions of domains. SNS aims to capture emerging markets with affordable pricing and speed, boosted by Solana’s Firedancer validator upgrade. Interoperability bridges may eventually connect ENS and SNS, reducing fragmentation in Web3 identity.

TLDR

• ENS vs SNS: Ethereum’s established ENS vs Solana’s fast, affordable SNS.
• ENS strengths: Security, integrations, DAO governance.
• ENS weaknesses: High gas fees, premium pricing.
• SNS strengths: Speed, affordability, social integrations.
• SNS weaknesses: Immaturity, reliance on Solana stability.
• Future: Both aim for wider adoption; ENS leads in enterprise, SNS in retail.

Conclusion

ENS and SNS are two sides of the same coin: ENS offers Ethereum’s security and maturity, while SNS thrives on Solana’s speed and low fees. Both move the Web3 experience closer to mass adoption by making blockchain identities usable, portable, and human-friendly. Their rivalry may ultimately benefit users, as competition drives innovation and convergence in decentralized identity.