Solidity excels at developer adoption and ecosystem liquidity because it is the foundational language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM), which commands over $50 billion in Total Value Locked (TVL) across chains like Arbitrum, Optimism, and Polygon. For example, its mature tooling—Hardhat, Foundry, OpenZeppelin libraries—and the vast pool of experienced developers make it the default choice for launching DeFi protocols such as Uniswap and Aave, prioritizing rapid deployment and composability.
LABS
Comparisons
Solidity vs Move for EVM vs Non-EVM Blockchains
A technical analysis comparing Solidity, the established standard for EVM chains, with Move, a next-generation language for asset-centric applications on networks like Aptos and Sui. We examine paradigms, security, tooling, and developer experience to guide CTOs and architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Paradigm Shift in Smart Contract Development
A data-driven comparison of Solidity's ecosystem dominance versus Move's security-first architecture for EVM and non-EVM blockchain development.
Move takes a different approach by enforcing resource-oriented programming and formal verification at the language level. This results in a trade-off: superior security for assets by preventing reentrancy and double-spend bugs by design, as seen in Sui and Aptos, but a steeper learning curve and a smaller, though growing, ecosystem of frameworks like the Move Prover and Pontem Network's tooling.
The key trade-off: If your priority is capital efficiency, developer availability, and leveraging existing DeFi primitives, choose Solidity for EVM chains. If you prioritize asset security, high-throughput applications (Sui's 297,000 TPS claim), and building novel financial products from the ground up, choose Move for its inherent safety guarantees on non-EVM architectures.
tldr-summary
SOLIDITY (EVM) vs MOVE (NON-EVM)
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the dominant smart contract languages, focusing on their core architectural philosophies and resulting trade-offs for protocol builders.
01
Solidity: Unmatched Ecosystem & Developer Velocity
Dominant Market Share: Powers over 95% of DeFi TVL (e.g., Uniswap, Aave, Compound). This translates to massive network effects and a mature toolchain (Hardhat, Foundry, OpenZeppelin). Choose Solidity for rapid prototyping and accessing the deepest pool of talent and existing code.
95%+
DeFi TVL Share
4M+
Devs (Est.)
02
Solidity: Interoperability via EVM Standard
Write Once, Deploy Anywhere: Code written for Ethereum can be deployed on Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism), Avalanche C-Chain, Polygon, and other EVM-compatible chains with minimal changes. This is critical for multi-chain strategies and leveraging shared infrastructure like block explorers and wallets.
03
Move: Resource-Centric Security Model
Built-in Asset Safety: Move treats digital assets as first-class citizens with linear types, preventing accidental loss or duplication. This native protection is ideal for high-value financial primitives like stablecoins (Aptos, Sui) and NFTs, reducing a major class of exploits common in EVM.
0
Reentrancy Bugs
04
Move: Formal Verification & Predictable Gas
Bytecode-Level Security: Move's resource model and static typing enable easier formal verification (e.g., with the Move Prover). Combined with deterministic gas costs based on computation, not state, it's superior for building mission-critical, high-throughput applications where cost predictability is non-negotiable.
05
Choose Solidity If...
Your priority is time-to-market, ecosystem leverage, or multi-chain deployment. You need:
- Access to $50B+ of existing DeFi liquidity.
- A vast library of audited, battle-tested contracts (OpenZeppelin).
- To hire from the largest developer pool.
- Composability with protocols like Chainlink, The Graph.
06
Choose Move If...
Your priority is security-by-design, asset integrity, and performance at scale. You are building:
- Novel financial primitives requiring absolute asset safety.
- High-frequency trading or gaming applications needing predictable gas.
- On Aptos or Sui and want to leverage their parallel execution engines.
- Systems where formal verification is a requirement.
LANGUAGE & VIRTUAL MACHINE COMPARISON
Head-to-Head Feature Matrix: Solidity vs Move
Core technical and ecosystem differences for smart contract development on EVM and non-EVM chains.
| Metric / Feature | Solidity (EVM) | Move (Aptos/Sui) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Execution Environment | Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) | Move Virtual Machine (MVM) |
Resource-Oriented Asset Model | ||
Formal Verification Support | Limited (3rd party tools) | Native (Move Prover) |
Average Gas Cost (Simple Transfer) | $0.50 - $2.00 | < $0.01 |
Peak TPS (Network-Dependent) | 4,000 (Polygon) | 65,000 (Aptos) |
Dominant Ecosystem | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Base | Aptos, Sui |
Key Security Feature | Re-entrancy guards (manual) | Linear types (automatic) |
Primary Use Case | DeFi, NFTs, General-Purpose dApps | High-Frequency Trading, Gaming, Digital Assets |
pros-cons-a
SOLIDITY VS MOVE
Solidity: The Established Standard
A technical breakdown of the dominant EVM language versus the resource-centric challenger from Aptos and Sui. Choose based on ecosystem access versus formal security guarantees.
01
Choose Solidity for EVM Dominance
Unmatched Ecosystem: Access to $50B+ in DeFi TVL, 4,000+ active GitHub repos, and battle-tested tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and OpenZeppelin. This matters for projects prioritizing liquidity, composability, and developer availability.
$50B+
EVM DeFi TVL
4,000+
Active Repos
03
Choose Solidity for Speed to Market
Mature Tooling & Audits: Vast library of audited smart contracts (e.g., Uniswap v3, Aave) and established security firms (e.g., Trail of Bits, ConsenSys Diligence) specializing in Solidity. This reduces development time and audit costs for rapid deployment on Ethereum, Arbitrum, or Polygon.
04
Choose Move for Parallel Execution
Native Concurrency Model: Move's data model (objects on Sui, resources on Aptos) is designed for parallel execution, enabling theoretical throughput of 100k+ TPS. This matters for high-frequency applications like gaming or order-book DEXs where transaction independence is key.
100k+
Theoretical TPS
pros-cons-b
Solidity vs Move
Move: The Next-Generation Challenger
A data-driven comparison of the dominant EVM language and its most formidable challenger. Choose based on your protocol's security model and target ecosystem.
01
Choose Solidity for Ecosystem & Network Effects
Dominant market share: Powers >90% of DeFi's $50B+ TVL across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base. This matters for protocols requiring deep liquidity and a massive existing user/developer base.
- Tooling maturity: Hardhat, Foundry, and 4,000+ verified contracts on Etherscan.
- Developer availability: Largest talent pool with 20K+ monthly active devs (Electric Capital).
$50B+
TVL
20K+
Monthly Devs
03
Choose Solidity for Composability & Standards
Mature interoperability: ERC-20, ERC-721, and EIP-712 create a seamless Lego-like system. This is non-negotiable for protocols that must integrate with existing DeFi stacks like Uniswap or Aave.
- Cross-chain portability: Same bytecode runs on 50+ EVM L2s and sidechains via standards like ERC-2535 (Diamonds).
- Established audit patterns: Known vulnerability patterns are well-documented and tooled (Slither, MythX).
04
Choose Move for Performance & Parallel Execution
Native support for parallelism: Aptos Block-STM and Sui's object model allow non-conflicting transactions to execute simultaneously, enabling 100K+ TPS theoretical peaks. This is essential for high-throughput applications like order-book DEXs or gaming.
- No gas estimation ambiguity: Transaction effects are fully known before execution, improving UX.
- On-chain package management: First-class modules and upgradeability via
aptos_frameworkandsui_framework.
100K+
Theoretical TPS
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Solidity vs Move
Solidity for DeFi
Verdict: The incumbent standard for composability and liquidity. Strengths:
- Dominant Ecosystem: Over $50B TVL across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base. Battle-tested contracts like Uniswap V3 and Aave are the industry blueprints.
- Maximum Composability: ERC-20/4626/721 standards create a seamless money Lego system. Integration with Chainlink oracles and MetaMask is trivial.
- Developer Talent Pool: Largest pool of experienced smart contract developers and auditors. Weaknesses:
- Inherent Vulnerabilities: Reentrancy, integer overflows, and delegatecall risks require rigorous auditing.
- Gas Optimization Burden: Manual optimization is critical, impacting user costs directly.
Move for DeFi
Verdict: A security-first challenger for novel financial primitives. Strengths:
- Asset-Oriented Security: Resources cannot be copied or implicitly discarded, eliminating entire vulnerability classes.
- Formal Verification Ready: Linear types and the Move Prover enable mathematical proof of contract properties.
- Predictable Gas: Fees are based on bytecode size and execution steps, not volatile network congestion. Weaknesses:
- Nascent Ecosystem: TVL on Aptos and Sui is a fraction of Ethereum's. Fewer battle-tested protocol examples.
- Composability Hurdles: Custom asset types can create friction with existing standards, requiring new tooling.
SOLIDITY VS MOVE
Technical Deep Dive: Paradigms and Security Models
A foundational comparison of the two dominant smart contract languages, examining how their design philosophies shape development, security, and the ecosystems they power.
Move's design inherently prevents entire classes of vulnerabilities that plague Solidity. Its resource-oriented model treats assets as non-copiable, non-droppable types, eliminating reentrancy and accidental loss by default. Solidity's flexibility allows for powerful patterns but requires rigorous auditing to avoid exploits like the DAO hack. For asset-heavy applications (DeFi, NFTs), Move provides stronger guarantees. For general-purpose logic with established tooling, Solidity's mature security ecosystem (OpenZeppelin, Slither) is highly effective when used correctly.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict: Choosing Your Foundation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between the established EVM ecosystem and the modern Move paradigm.
Solidity and the EVM ecosystem excel at developer adoption and liquidity access because of its first-mover advantage and massive network effects. For example, the combined Total Value Locked (TVL) of major EVM chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base exceeds $70B, and the developer tooling landscape (Hardhat, Foundry, OpenZeppelin) is unmatched. Building here means instant access to a vast pool of users, capital, and battle-tested infrastructure like MetaMask and The Graph.
Move and its non-EVM blockchains (Aptos, Sui) take a fundamentally different approach by designing the language and VM in tandem for security and parallel execution. This results in superior formal verification capabilities for asset safety and potential for high throughput—Sui has demonstrated over 297,000 TPS in controlled environments. The trade-off is a younger, less saturated ecosystem with fewer deployed dApps and a steeper learning curve for developers accustomed to Solidity's patterns.
The key trade-off is between ecosystem maturity and architectural innovation. If your priority is launching quickly into deep liquidity markets with proven tools and a large talent pool, choose Solidity on an EVM chain. If you prioritize building hyper-scalable, asset-secure applications (e.g., high-frequency DeFi, gaming economies) and are willing to pioneer in a growing ecosystem, choose Move on Aptos or Sui.
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