Move excels at secure, asset-centric smart contract development due to its resource-oriented programming model and built-in formal verification capabilities. For example, the Aptos and Sui blockchains leverage Move to enforce strict ownership semantics, making it inherently resistant to reentrancy attacks and accidental loss—critical for managing user account logic and assets. This results in a steeper learning curve but provides a more predictable execution environment for complex AA operations like batched transactions and session keys.
LABS
Comparisons
Move vs Solidity for Native Account Abstraction on L1
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects on implementing account abstraction: Move's native resource model on Aptos/Sui versus Solidity's ERC-4337 standard on Ethereum L1. Analyzes security, performance, and development trade-offs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Architectural Fork in the Road for AA
A technical comparison of Move and Solidity for building natively abstracted accounts on Layer 1, focusing on security, flexibility, and ecosystem trade-offs.
Solidity takes a different approach by prioritizing developer familiarity and ecosystem liquidity through its EVM compatibility. This results in immediate access to a massive toolchain (Hardhat, Foundry), standards (ERC-4337), and a $50B+ DeFi TVL. However, its flexibility can introduce security pitfalls like unchecked external calls, requiring rigorous auditing for AA implementations that manage user funds and authorization logic.
The key trade-off: If your priority is provable security and novel asset logic for a new L1, choose Move. If you prioritize rapid development, existing standards, and maximum composability with Ethereum's ecosystem, choose Solidity.
tldr-summary
SOLIDITY VS MOVE
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for implementing native account abstraction (AA) at the L1 level.
01
Solidity: Unmatched Ecosystem & Tooling
Massive developer adoption: 4,000+ monthly active devs (Electric Capital). This matters for finding talent and leveraging battle-tested libraries like OpenZeppelin for AA patterns. The EVM's dominance means tools like Foundry, Hardhat, and wallets like MetaMask have first-class AA support via ERC-4337.
4,000+
Monthly Active Devs
03
Move: Built-in Security & Asset Safety
Resource-oriented programming: Assets are non-copyable, non-droppable types stored directly in account storage. This matters for eliminating reentrancy and overflow bugs common in Solidity AA implementations. Native AA features like Aptos' Rotating Authentication Key are inherently safer.
04
Move: Native Performance & Parallelization
First-class AA in the VM: Account logic is a core primitive, not a smart contract overlay. This matters for lower gas costs and higher throughput for AA operations. Combined with parallel execution (Sui, Aptos), Move enables mass-scale AA for gaming or social apps.
100k+
Peak TPS (Aptos)
05
Choose Solidity If...
You prioritize ecosystem size, interoperability, and time-to-market. Ideal for DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap) extending to AA, or teams wanting to deploy AA across multiple EVM L2s using existing tooling and audited smart account factories.
06
Choose Move If...
You are building high-throughput consumer dApps where security and performance are non-negotiable. Ideal for web3 gaming (SUI), NFT marketplaces, or social platforms requiring millions of low-cost AA transactions with maximal asset safety.
ARCHITECTURAL COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Move Native AA vs Solidity ERC-4337
Direct comparison of native account abstraction on Move-based chains (e.g., Aptos, Sui) versus EVM-based chains using ERC-4337.
| Metric / Feature | Move Native AA | Solidity ERC-4337 |
|---|---|---|
Architectural Layer | L1 Protocol Layer | Smart Contract Layer |
Gas Sponsorship Model | Native (First-Class) | Bundler-Dependent |
Transaction Atomicity | Multi-tx in single atomic batch | UserOperation bundling via mempool |
Key Innovation | Resource-oriented model, built-in signer types | Paymaster, Bundler, EntryPoint contracts |
Avg. User Onboarding Cost | $0 (Sponsored Tx) | $2-5 (Initial Smart Account Deploy) |
Signature Scheme Flexibility | Native support for any scheme (e.g., Ed25519, BLS) | EIP-1271 standard required for non-ECDSA |
Primary Ecosystem | Aptos, Sui | Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism |
pros-cons-a
L1 Account Abstraction Showdown
Move (Aptos/Sui) Native AA: Pros and Cons
Comparing the architectural and ecosystem trade-offs between Move-based native AA on Aptos/Sui and Solidity-based implementations on EVM L1s.
01
Move's Formal Verification Edge
Inherent safety by design: Move's resource-oriented model and bytecode verifier prevent double-spending and invalid states at the VM level. This reduces critical AA vulnerabilities like signature replay or nonce manipulation, crucial for high-value institutional wallets and DeFi protocols.
02
Native Gas Abstraction & Sponsorship
First-class protocol feature: Gas fees can be paid in any token (e.g., USDC) and sponsored by dApps via native GasData structs. This enables seamless onboarding (0-gas transactions for users) and complex fee logic without relying on external paymasters, as seen in Aptos' TransactionFeePayer module.
03
Solidity's Ecosystem Maturity
Massive tooling advantage: 90%+ of AA tooling (Safe, Biconomy, Pimlico, ZeroDev) is built for EVM. Developers can integrate battle-tested AA SDKs and bundlers in hours, leveraging a $60B+ DeFi TVL and standards like ERC-4337 and ERC-6900 for modular smart accounts.
04
Battle-Tested Security & Audits
Proven in production: Solidity AA patterns have been stress-tested for 2+ years with billions in TVL across Safe wallets and major L2s. Thousands of audit reports and security reviews exist for common pitfalls, offering a lower-risk path for regulated enterprises and large protocols.
05
Move: Choose for Novel Financial Primitives
Ideal for: High-frequency DeFi, gaming economies, and asset-heavy applications where transaction parallelization (Sui) and guaranteed state safety are non-negotiable. Projects like Aptos' Pontem Network or Sui's BlueMove leverage this for complex, gas-optimized AA flows.
06
Solidity: Choose for Rapid Market Fit
Ideal for: Teams needing immediate compatibility with Ethereum's liquidity, existing AA infrastructure, and a large developer pool. Perfect for token launches, NFT platforms, or EVM-chain bridges where speed to market and integration with Safe{Wallet} or Coinbase Smart Wallet is critical.
pros-cons-b
Move vs Solidity for Native Account Abstraction on L1
Solidity (Ethereum) ERC-4337: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for implementing native account abstraction at the L1 protocol level.
01
Solidity/ERC-4337: Ecosystem Dominance
Massive Network Effects: Deploys to Ethereum and all major EVM L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base). Over 90% of AA wallets (Safe, Biconomy, Rhinestone) are built on this standard. This matters for protocols needing maximum user and developer reach from day one.
02
Solidity/ERC-4337: Battle-Tested Security
Audited & Upgradable: ERC-4337's core contracts (EntryPoint, AccountFactory) have undergone multiple formal verifications and audits by OpenZeppelin and Nethermind. The modular, contract-based design allows for secure, incremental upgrades without hard forks. This is critical for financial applications managing high-value assets.
03
Move (e.g., Aptos, Sui): Native Language Security
Built-in Safety Guarantees: Move's resource-oriented model and bytecode verifier prevent key vulnerabilities like reentrancy and double-spending at the language level. Native AA is part of the protocol's object model, reducing smart contract attack surface. This matters for developers prioritizing security-by-default over retrofitted solutions.
04
Move (e.g., Aptos, Sui): Superior Performance & UX
Parallel Execution & Lower Latency: Native AA transactions (e.g., sponsored tx, batched ops) benefit from parallel execution engines on Aptos (Block-STM) and Sui. This enables higher TPS and sub-second finality for AA flows. Choose this for applications requiring real-time, gasless interactions like gaming or high-frequency trading.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Move for DeFi
Verdict: Superior for complex, composable protocols requiring formal verification and asset safety. Strengths: Move's resource-oriented model treats assets as non-copyable, non-droppable objects, preventing critical vulnerabilities like reentrancy and double-spending by design. This is ideal for high-value DeFi primitives. Its module-based architecture (e.g., Aptos Framework, Sui Framework) provides secure, reusable components for pools, oracles, and governance. Native support for parallel execution (on Aptos Block-STM, Sui) maximizes throughput for order books and AMMs. Considerations: The ecosystem is newer; you'll rely more on native frameworks than the vast, audited Solidity library ecosystem (OpenZeppelin, Uniswap v4).
Solidity for DeFi
Verdict: The incumbent standard for maximum liquidity, interoperability, and developer tooling. Strengths: Unmatched Total Value Locked (TVL) and network effects on Ethereum L1/L2s. The ERC-4337 standard for account abstraction is live, with a mature bundler/paymaster infrastructure (Stackup, Biconomy, Alchemy). Access to battle-tested DeFi blueprints (Compound, Aave) and security audit firms. Seamless integration with EVM L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) for scaling. Considerations: Native asset safety is not enforced; security relies on rigorous auditing and patterns. L1 gas costs for AA operations can be high without an L2.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Move and Solidity for native account abstraction is a foundational architectural decision with long-term implications for security, developer velocity, and user experience.
Move excels at providing a secure, resource-aware foundation for AA by design. Its object-centric data model and linear type system enforce strict ownership rules, making it inherently resistant to reentrancy and other common smart contract vulnerabilities. This is evident in the security track record of early adopters like Aptos and Sui, where the architecture has prevented entire classes of exploits common in EVM ecosystems. The native ability to define custom resource types makes representing complex, non-fungible account states—like multi-sig signer sets or session keys—both safe and gas-efficient.
Solidity takes a different approach by leveraging its massive, established ecosystem to build AA through standards and composable smart contracts. The dominance of the ERC-4337 standard, with over 1 million user operations processed and a vibrant bundler/verifier infrastructure, demonstrates the power of network effects. However, this results in a trade-off: AA is implemented at the application layer, introducing gas overhead for paymasters and signature aggregation, and relying on audited, yet complex, singleton factory contracts for security, rather than the language itself.
The key trade-off: If your priority is architectural security, maximal gas efficiency for complex account logic, and building a novel L1 from the ground up, choose Move. Its native capabilities are a strategic advantage for protocols where account state is a core innovation. If you prioritize immediate developer availability, ecosystem composability with DeFi giants like Aave and Uniswap V4, and leveraging a battle-tested standard, choose Solidity/ERC-4337. Your project will move faster by building on an existing, if more layered, infrastructure stack.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall