ERC-4337 excels at standardization and ecosystem interoperability because it operates as a higher-layer protocol, avoiding core consensus changes. This creates a unified developer experience across all EVM chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon, with shared tools like the @account-abstraction/sdk and bundler infrastructure. For example, the entry point contract on Ethereum Mainnet has processed over 4 million user operations, demonstrating robust network effects and shared security.
LABS
Comparisons
Account Abstraction: ERC-4337 vs Native Support on Non-EVM Chains
A technical comparison of the EVM's entry point standard against native implementations on StarkNet and zkSync Era, analyzing architecture, user onboarding, and developer trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Two Paths to Smart Accounts
A technical breakdown of the two dominant approaches to account abstraction, comparing the EVM's standard-driven ERC-4337 with the protocol-native implementations of non-EVM chains.
Native Account Abstraction on chains like Starknet, zkSync Era, and Solana takes a different approach by baking smart account logic directly into the protocol layer. This results in superior gas efficiency and atomic composability, as seen in Starknet's account model where a single transaction can initiate multiple contract calls. The trade-off is fragmentation; each chain's implementation is unique, requiring custom development and limiting tooling portability.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, multi-chain deployment, and leveraging the vast EVM toolchain, choose ERC-4337. If you prioritize maximal performance, lower fees, and are building a vertically integrated application on a single high-performance chain, choose a native implementation like those on Starknet or Sui.
tldr-summary
ERC-4337 vs Native AA
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural and ecosystem trade-offs for protocol architects choosing an account abstraction foundation.
01
ERC-4337: Ecosystem Momentum
Standardized Interoperability: A single, high-level standard across all EVM chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base). This matters for teams building multi-chain dApps that need consistent user experience and wallet support like Safe, Biconomy, and Alchemy's Account Kit.
02
ERC-4337: Developer Leverage
Existing Tooling & Audits: Leverage battle-tested infrastructure (Bundlers, Paymasters) and security models. This matters for teams with tight timelines who cannot afford to build and secure custom AA infrastructure, relying on services like Stackup, Pimlico, and Candide.
03
Native AA (e.g., Starknet, zkSync): Performance & Cost
Protocol-Level Efficiency: Native opcodes for validation and sponsorship reduce gas overhead and latency vs. ERC-4337's simulation-heavy mempool. This matters for applications requiring sub-second social logins or high-frequency sponsored transactions with minimal latency.
04
Native AA (e.g., Sui, Aptos): Design Freedom
Architectural First-Principles: Chains can design state models and transaction flows around accounts from inception (e.g., Sui's object-centric model). This matters for novel use cases impossible on EVM, like dynamic parallelizable asset ownership or complex multi-signature schemes.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: ERC-4337 vs Native AA
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for Account Abstraction implementations.
| Metric | ERC-4337 (EVM) | Native AA (e.g., Starknet, zkSync) |
|---|---|---|
Development Overhead | High (Requires Bundlers, Paymasters) | Low (Built into protocol) |
Gas Sponsorship (Paymaster) | ||
Transaction Batching | ||
Session Keys | Requires custom logic | Native protocol feature |
Avg. UserOp Cost | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.01 |
Time to First Confirmation | ~12 sec (Ethereum L1) | < 1 sec (L2) |
Ecosystem Tooling | Alchemy, Biconomy, Pimlico | Argent, Braavos, native SDKs |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Decision Framework
ERC-4337 for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for composability and liquidity. Strengths: Direct access to Ethereum's $50B+ DeFi TVL and battle-tested protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound. The modular bundler/paymaster model allows for sophisticated fee sponsorship and gas abstraction, crucial for onboarding institutional flows. Smart contract wallets enable multi-sig treasury management and transaction batching (e.g., approve & swap in one click). Trade-offs: Relies on a decentralized mempool and bundler network, adding latency (~15-30 sec). Higher base-layer gas costs during congestion.
Native AA (e.g., Starknet, zkSync) for DeFi
Verdict: Superior UX for high-frequency, low-value interactions. Strengths: Atomic transactions and session keys enable seamless, gasless trading experiences. Native fee abstraction is more elegant and predictable. Ideal for perpetual DEXs and money markets requiring many small actions. Trade-offs: Ecosystem liquidity is fragmented. Cross-chain asset bridging adds complexity. Less proven security for complex financial logic.
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
ERC-4337 vs Native Account Abstraction
A side-by-side analysis of the dominant EVM standard versus built-in approaches on chains like Solana, NEAR, and Starknet. Choose based on ecosystem reach versus protocol-level efficiency.
01
ERC-4337: Ecosystem Leverage
Massive EVM Compatibility: Deployable on Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, and 50+ L2s. This matters for dApps requiring broad user access without fragmentation. Tools like Safe{Wallet}, Biconomy, and Alchemy's AA SDK provide mature infrastructure.
50+
Compatible Chains
02
ERC-4337: Incremental Upgrade Path
No consensus-layer changes required. Implemented via a higher-layer mempool and bundlers. This matters for teams prioritizing rapid iteration and avoiding hard forks. Enables features like social recovery, session keys, and gas sponsorship today.
03
Native AA (e.g., Solana, NEAR): Performance & Cost
Protocol-level efficiency eliminates overhead from bundler networks and separate mempools. This matters for high-frequency applications where latency and fee minimization are critical. Transactions are native objects, not simulated.
< $0.001
Typical Tx Cost
04
Native AA (e.g., Starknet, zkSync): Developer Experience
Unified abstraction model baked into the protocol. This matters for developers seeking consistency and fewer moving parts. Smart accounts are a primitive, not an add-on, simplifying logic for batch transactions and atomic composability.
05
ERC-4337 Limitation: Relayer Dependency
Introduces a new trust vector via bundlers and paymasters. This matters for applications demanding maximum decentralization. Network effects rely on Pimlico, Stackup, and Alchemy operating reliable services, creating potential centralization points.
06
Native AA Limitation: Ecosystem Isolation
Solutions are chain-specific and not portable. This matters for protocols planning multi-chain deployments. A Solana program abstraction won't work on Sui or Aptos, forcing re-engineering and fragmenting user experience across ecosystems.
pros-cons-b
Account Abstraction: ERC-4337 vs Native Support on Non-EVM Chains
Native AA (StarkNet/zkSync Era): Advantages and Limitations
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating core infrastructure dependencies.
01
Native AA: Protocol-Level Efficiency
Direct integration into the VM: Native implementations like StarkNet's account contracts or zkSync Era's Account Abstraction SDK are part of the core protocol, enabling lower gas costs and simpler transaction flows. This matters for high-frequency dApps where every gas unit counts, and for protocols like dYdX or ImmutableX building complex on-chain logic.
02
Native AA: Superior User Experience
Built-in session keys & fee sponsorship: Native systems can offer features like social recovery (StarkNet), batch transactions, and gasless onboarding without relying on a separate mempool. This matters for mass-market consumer apps (gaming, social) where seamless onboarding and session-based interactions are critical for adoption.
03
ERC-4337: EVM Ecosystem Ubiquity
Single standard across 10+ chains: Bundlers, Paymasters, and Account Factories from Stackup, Alchemy, and Biconomy work on Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Base. This matters for multi-chain protocols like Aave or Uniswap that need a consistent AA implementation without rewriting logic for each L2.
04
ERC-4337: Battle-Tested Security & Tooling
Audited by core Ethereum devs and integrated into major wallets (Safe, Rainbow). The entry point contract has undergone extensive formal verification. This matters for institutional DeFi and custodial services where security audits and a mature toolchain (like Pimlico's SDK) are non-negotiable for risk management.
05
Native AA Limitation: Ecosystem Fragmentation
No cross-chain portability: A StarkNet smart account cannot be used on zkSync Era, and vice-versa. Wallet providers must build custom integrations for each non-EVM chain. This matters for wallet developers (like Argent) and users who face a fragmented experience across the ZK-rollup landscape.
06
ERC-4337 Limitation: Higher Overhead & Latency
Relies on a separate mempool and bundler network: This adds complexity, potential points of failure, and higher gas costs (bundler fees) compared to native L2 implementations. This matters for ultra-low-latency applications (high-frequency trading, real-time gaming) where the extra hop and cost are prohibitive.
ACCOUNT ABSTRACTION
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Flows
A technical comparison of the two dominant approaches to account abstraction: the smart contract-based ERC-4337 standard on EVM chains versus the native, protocol-level support found on non-EVM chains like Solana, Starknet, and NEAR.
ERC-4337 offers a more battle-tested and auditable security model. Its security is inherited from the underlying EVM and the extensive auditing of individual smart contract wallets (like Safe, Biconomy) and Paymasters. Native implementations, such as Solana's, integrate security at the protocol level, which can reduce attack surfaces but places greater trust in the core consensus and client implementation. The trade-off is between the modular, app-layer security of ERC-4337 and the monolithic, system-layer security of native AA.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between ERC-4337 and native account abstraction is a strategic decision that hinges on ecosystem reach versus performance and control.
ERC-4337 excels at providing a standardized, portable user experience across the dominant EVM ecosystem because it's a smart contract-based standard that doesn't require core protocol changes. For example, its deployment on networks like Polygon, Arbitrum, and Base has enabled a collective User Operation volume exceeding 10 million, demonstrating massive developer adoption and a unified tooling landscape with bundlers like Stackup and paymasters from Biconomy.
Native AA on Non-EVM chains (e.g., Starknet, zkSync Era, Solana) takes a different approach by baking account abstraction directly into the protocol's consensus layer. This results in superior performance and cost efficiency—native sponsored transactions often have zero gas fees for users and benefit from higher throughput, but at the trade-off of being locked into a specific, often newer, blockchain ecosystem with a smaller existing developer base and tooling.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing user reach and leveraging established Ethereum tooling (e.g., wallets like Safe, SDKs from Alchemy), choose ERC-4337. If you prioritize ultimate performance, lower costs, and architectural control for a novel application, choose a chain with native account abstraction like Starknet or zkSync Era, accepting the ecosystem's current scale.
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