EVM-Compatible NFT Standards (ERC-721, ERC-1155) excel at ecosystem liquidity and developer accessibility because they leverage the massive, established Ethereum network and its Layer 2s (Arbitrum, Polygon, Base). For example, the combined NFT trading volume across major EVM chains consistently exceeds $1B monthly, providing unparalleled market depth. The use of Solidity and familiar tools like OpenZeppelin and Hardhat drastically reduces onboarding time for new teams.
LABS
Comparisons
EVM-Compatible NFT Standards vs Non-EVM NFT Standards (e.g., Solana's SPL)
A foundational comparison for CTOs and architects choosing an NFT standard for gaming economies. Analyzes ERC-721/1155 on EVM chains versus Solana's SPL standard across developer tooling, transaction costs, and ecosystem interoperability.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Foundational Choice for Game Economies
Choosing between EVM-compatible and non-EVM NFT standards is a foundational architectural decision that dictates your game's reach, cost structure, and technical debt.
Non-EVM NFT Standards (e.g., Solana's SPL Token Standard) take a different approach by prioritizing low-cost, high-throughput transactions at the base layer. This results in a trade-off: minting 10,000 NFTs can cost under $50 on Solana versus potentially thousands on Ethereum L1, but you sacrifice direct access to the EVM's entrenched tooling and composability with protocols like Aave and Uniswap. Solana's parallel execution via Sealevel also enables novel real-time game mechanics.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing player liquidity and leveraging a battle-tested ecosystem with rich composability, choose an EVM-compatible standard on a suitable L2. If you prioritize ultra-low, predictable transaction costs for high-frequency in-game actions and are willing to build in a more specialized Rust/C++ environment, choose a non-EVM standard like Solana's SPL.
tldr-summary
EVM vs. Non-EVM NFT Standards
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of the dominant Ethereum Virtual Machine ecosystem against high-performance alternatives like Solana's SPL.
01
EVM (ERC-721/1155): Developer Ecosystem
Dominant network effect: Over 4,000 monthly active developers (Electric Capital). This matters for finding talent, using battle-tested tools like OpenZeppelin, and integrating with a vast DeFi and infrastructure landscape (e.g., Chainlink, The Graph).
4,000+
Monthly Devs
$50B+
NFT Market Cap
03
EVM (ERC-721/1155): Trade-Off (Cost & Speed)
Higher cost, lower throughput: Mainnet minting/trading can cost $50+ during congestion, with ~15 TPS. While Layer-2s reduce costs, they add bridging complexity. This matters for high-frequency trading or mass adoption consumer apps where sub-cent fees are required.
~15
Base TPS
$50+
Peak Mint Cost
04
Non-EVM (SPL): Performance & Cost
Low-cost, high-speed native execution: Sub-cent transaction fees and ~3,000-5,000 TPS (theoretical). This matters for high-volume marketplaces (Tensor), gaming assets, or any application requiring cheap, fast minting and transfers for millions of users.
< $0.01
Avg. TX Fee
3k-5k
Theoretical TPS
06
Non-EVM (SPL): Trade-Off (Ecosystem Maturity)
Younger, more centralized tooling: Smaller dev pool (~1,000 monthly active devs). Core tooling (Metaplex) is powerful but largely controlled by a single foundation. This matters for long-term protocol risk and finding developers with Rust/Anchor experience versus Solidity.
~1k
Monthly Devs
EVM VS. NON-EVM NFT STANDARDS
Head-to-Head Feature Matrix: ERC-721/1155 vs SPL
Direct comparison of key technical and ecosystem metrics for NFT standards on Ethereum/Solana.
| Metric / Feature | ERC-721 / ERC-1155 (EVM) | SPL Token (Solana) |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Mint Cost (Single NFT) | $10 - $50+ | < $0.01 |
Time to Finality | ~15 minutes | ~400 ms |
Primary Standard for | Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base | Solana |
Native Batch Minting | ||
Native Semi-Fungible Token (SFT) | ERC-1155 only | |
Primary Marketplace Ecosystem | OpenSea, Blur, LooksRare | Tensor, Magic Eden |
Royalty Enforcement at Protocol Level |
pros-cons-a
EVM vs Non-EVM NFT Standards
EVM-Compatible NFT Standards (ERC-721/1155): Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of the dominant EVM standards against high-performance alternatives like Solana's SPL. Key strengths and trade-offs for protocol architects.
01
EVM: Unmatched Ecosystem & Composability
Dominant market share: Powers >80% of NFT trading volume across Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Base. This matters for projects requiring deep liquidity, established marketplaces (OpenSea, Blur), and seamless integration with DeFi protocols like Aavegotchi or Uniswap V3 positions.
>80%
NFT Market Share
03
Non-EVM (SPL): Ultra-Low Cost & High Throughput
Sub-cent minting & 5,000+ TPS: Solana's SPL token standard enables mass distribution and high-frequency trading at a fraction of EVM L1 costs. This matters for gaming assets, ticketing, or social apps where user acquisition costs and micro-transactions are primary concerns.
<$0.01
Avg. Mint Cost
5,000+
TPS
04
Non-EVM (SPL): Parallel Execution & Speed
Sub-second finality: Sealevel runtime allows parallel transaction processing, eliminating network congestion seen during EVM NFT mints. This matters for real-time applications like in-game asset trading on Fractal or high-volume generative art collections where user experience is paramount.
<400ms
Finality
05
EVM: Fragmentation & High L1 Costs
Gas wars & cross-chain complexity: Native Ethereum mainnet minting can cost >$50 per transaction, forcing projects onto L2s (Optimism, zkSync) and fragmenting liquidity. This matters for projects targeting mainstream users unwilling to bridge assets or pay variable fees.
06
Non-EVM: Centralization Risks & Tooling Gaps
Validator concentration & immature tooling: Solana's reliance on a small set of validators poses liveness risks, and its developer tools (Anchor, Helius) are less mature than EVM's. This matters for financialized NFTs or protocols where maximum decentralization and extensive auditing libraries are non-negotiable.
pros-cons-b
SOLANA SPL TOKENS VS. EVM ERC-721/1155
Non-EVM NFT Standard (Solana SPL): Pros and Cons
A technical breakdown of the architectural trade-offs between Solana's SPL Token standard and Ethereum's ERC standards for NFTs, focusing on performance, cost, and developer experience.
01
SPL Advantage: Performance & Cost
Sub-second finality and micro-fee transactions. Solana's parallel execution via Sealevel and proof-of-history enables ~5,000 TPS for NFT mints/trades, with fees often below $0.001. This matters for high-volume, low-margin applications like gaming assets or social badges where user experience and cost are paramount. Compare to Ethereum's ~15-50 TPS and $5-$50+ gas fees during congestion.
< $0.001
Avg. NFT Tx Fee
~5,000 TPS
Network Capacity
03
EVM Advantage: Ecosystem & Tooling
Dominant market share and battle-tested infrastructure. EVM chains (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum) host ~80% of all NFT value (TVL) and trading volume. This translates to deep liquidity and mature tooling: OpenSea, Blur, Hardhat, Foundry, and countless audited smart contract libraries. This matters for projects prioritizing liquidity, security, and developer familiarity over raw throughput.
~80%
NFT Market Share
4,000+
Audited ERC-721 Contracts
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Standard
EVM Standards (ERC-721, ERC-1155) for Developers
Verdict: The default for portability and tooling. Strengths:
- Massive Ecosystem: Unmatched tooling with Hardhat, Foundry, OpenZeppelin libraries, and wallets like MetaMask.
- Cross-Chain Portability: Deploy the same contract to Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base, and other EVM L2s with minimal changes.
- Proven Security: Audited, battle-tested standards with extensive documentation and community support. Considerations: Higher gas costs on Ethereum L1 necessitate L2 strategies.
Non-EVM Standards (Solana SPL) for Developers
Verdict: High-performance choice for native Solana applications. Strengths:
- Performance-First: Sub-second finality and sub-cent transaction fees enable new UX patterns.
- Native Tooling: Anchor framework, Solana Web3.js, and Phantom wallet provide a robust, if more siloed, stack.
- Compact Data Models: SPL's data structures are optimized for Solana's parallel execution model. Considerations: Steeper learning curve (Rust, Solana's architecture) and less portable code.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between EVM and non-EVM NFT standards is a foundational decision that balances ecosystem maturity against raw performance and cost.
EVM-Compatible Standards (ERC-721, ERC-1155) excel at ecosystem liquidity and developer accessibility because they are the de facto standard for the largest Web3 market. For example, the combined NFT trading volume on Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum consistently dwarfs other chains, with Ethereum's Blur and OpenSea facilitating billions in annual volume. This deep liquidity, coupled with a mature tooling stack (OpenZeppelin, Hardhat, The Graph) and seamless cross-chain bridging via protocols like LayerZero, makes EVM the default for projects prioritizing market reach and composability with DeFi giants like Aave and Uniswap.
Non-EVM Standards (Solana's SPL, Bitcoin Ordinals) take a different architectural approach by optimizing for low-cost, high-throughput transactions. Solana's SPL Token standard leverages a parallelized runtime to enable minting and trading at sub-cent fees and ~3,000 TPS, a stark contrast to Ethereum's ~15 TPS and variable gas costs. This results in a trade-off: while enabling novel use cases like real-time gaming assets and high-frequency generative art, the ecosystem has faced challenges with network stability and has a smaller, though rapidly growing, pool of experienced developers compared to the EVM's established talent base.
The key trade-off is between ecosystem depth and performance economics. If your priority is tapping into the deepest liquidity pools, leveraging the broadest developer tools, and ensuring maximum interoperability within the DeFi and institutional landscape, choose EVM-Compatible Standards. If you prioritize ultra-low, predictable minting and transaction costs, require high throughput for dynamic NFT applications, and are building for a user base highly sensitive to fees, choose Non-EVM Standards like Solana's SPL.
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