Hardhat Plugins vs Foundry's Forge vs Move Prover: The Ultimate Tooling Comparison

Massive plugin ecosystem: 100+ verified plugins for tasks like deployment (Hardhat-Deploy), verification (Hardhat-Etherscan), and testing (Hardhat-Chai-Matchers). This matters for teams building complex dApps that require deep integration with services like The Graph, Tenderly, or OpenZeppelin Defender.

Seamless full-stack integration: Uses the same language (JS/TS) as most web3 frontends (e.g., wagmi, ethers.js). This matters for teams that want a unified codebase and developers who prefer not to context-switch between Solidity and another systems language.

Blazing-fast Solidity testing: Written in Rust, Forge executes tests 10-100x faster than JavaScript-based runners. This matters for large protocol teams (like MakerDAO, Uniswap) with massive test suites where CI/CD speed is critical.

Built-in fuzzing and debugging: forge test includes property-based fuzzing and forge debug offers a step-by-step debugger, all without leaving Solidity. This matters for security-focused developers who want to write comprehensive tests and audits directly in their contract language.

Mathematically proven correctness: The Move Prover (MVP) allows developers to write formal specifications for their smart contracts, proving properties like absence of arithmetic overflows or access control violations. This matters for high-value financial protocols (like Aptos DeFi, Sui liquidity pools) where security is paramount.

Built-in resource semantics: The Move language's key and store abilities, combined with the Prover, enforce safety by design (e.g., preventing double-spend). This matters for developers building novel asset-centric applications on Aptos or Sui, reducing the attack surface from the start.

Native JS/TS environment: Leverages Node.js and familiar testing frameworks (Mocha, Chai). This matters for full-stack teams where frontend and backend devs share a language, reducing context switching. Enables complex scripting for deployments and interactions with protocols like Uniswap or Aave.

Self-contained toolkit: Single foundry.toml config manages testing, forking, and deployment. This matters for security-focused teams minimizing supply-chain risk. Avoids Node.js/npm dependency trees, leading to more deterministic builds. Ideal for building lean, auditable smart contracts.

Built-in safety for assets: Move's bytecode verifier enforces resource semantics (no double-spend, guaranteed scarcity). This matters for NFT and digital asset platforms where correct resource handling is paramount. Reduces entire classes of vulnerabilities (reentrancy, overflow) common in Solidity, but locks you into the Move ecosystem.

Massive plugin ecosystem: Over 1,000+ community plugins for tasks like deployment (hardhat-deploy), verification (hardhat-etherscan), and security (hardhat-gas-reporter). This matters for teams building on EVM chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) who need to integrate with existing infrastructure like Tenderly or The Graph without building custom scripts.

Configuration complexity and slower tests: Managing multiple plugin dependencies and writing tests in JavaScript/TypeScript can slow down iteration. The Node.js runtime is slower than native Rust for heavy computation. This matters for protocols with large test suites where feedback loops over 10+ minutes impact developer velocity.

Blazing-fast execution in native Rust: Forge executes Solidity tests directly in a Rust EVM, offering sub-second test runs for large codebases. It includes fuzzing and differential testing (via forge test) out-of-the-box. This matters for teams prioritizing security, performance, and a pure Solidity development experience without context switching to JavaScript.

Limited third-party integration: Forge's plugin system (via forge install) is less mature than Hardhat's. Teams needing deep integration with services like OpenZeppelin Defender, Chainlink, or custom deployment dashboards may need to build and maintain their own tooling. This matters for enterprises with complex CI/CD pipelines reliant on specific external services.

Mathematically proven correctness: The Move Prover (MVP) is a formal verification tool integrated into the Move language, allowing developers to specify functional properties (e.g., "total supply is constant") and prove them statically. This matters for foundational DeFi protocols (like Aptos, Sui) where a single bug can lead to catastrophic fund loss, justifying the upfront specification effort.

Confined to the Move ecosystem: The tool is only applicable for smart contracts written in the Move language (primarily on Aptos and Sui networks). It has a steep learning curve for writing formal specifications and lacks the general-purpose tooling maturity of the EVM ecosystem. This matters for teams evaluating multi-chain strategies or with existing Solidity/Vyper expertise.

Mathematical Proof of Correctness: Formally verifies contract invariants and security properties, eliminating entire classes of bugs like reentrancy and overflow. This is critical for high-value DeFi protocols (e.g., Aave on Aptos, Liquidswap) where a single bug can lead to catastrophic loss.

Steep Integration Cost: Requires writing formal specifications in the Move language (MSL). This adds significant upfront development time and requires specialized knowledge. Less suitable for rapid prototyping or teams without formal methods expertise.

Ethereum-Native Developer Experience: Offers a fast, Rust-based testing suite familiar to Solidity devs. Supports fuzz testing and differential testing out of the box. Ideal for EVM-compatible Move chains like Movement Labs or teams migrating from Ethereum seeking a proven workflow.

Limited Native Move Support: Primarily an EVM tool. While adapters exist, it lacks deep integration with Move's unique features like resource semantics and the global storage model. May not catch Move-specific bugs that the Move Prover would.

Massive Plugin Ecosystem: Leverages thousands of existing plugins for tasks like deployment (Hardhat-Deploy), verification, and gas reporting. Best for teams building cross-chain applications that need to integrate with Ethereum tooling and infrastructure.

JavaScript/TypeScript Runtime Overhead: Slower test execution compared to Rust-based Foundry. Managing plugin compatibility adds complexity. Less optimal for performance-critical CI/CD pipelines or teams prioritizing raw execution speed.