zkSync Era excels at providing a stable, shared throughput environment for mainstream dApps because it operates as a single, unified L2. Its performance is defined by the chain's aggregate capacity, which currently processes hundreds of transactions per second (TPS) and shares this resource pool across all deployed protocols like Uniswap, Maverick, and SyncSwap. This model offers predictable gas fees and low operational overhead, making it ideal for teams that prioritize immediate deployment on a proven, high-liquidity network.
LABS
Comparisons
zkSync Hyperchains vs zkSync Era: Throughput
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects on throughput, TPS, and scalability trade-offs between zkSync's shared L2 and dedicated appchain solutions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Shared vs. Sovereign Throughput Dilemma
zkSync Era offers shared, predictable throughput, while Hyperchains provide dedicated, sovereign capacity, forcing a fundamental architectural choice.
zkSync Hyperchains take a different approach by enabling teams to launch their own dedicated zkEVM chains. This strategy results in sovereign throughput, where a project's TPS is limited only by its chosen validator set and hardware, theoretically scaling into the thousands. The trade-off is operational complexity: you must bootstrap security (via a decentralized sequencer), liquidity, and network effects independently, akin to launching an L1, but with the benefit of native interoperability via the ZK Stack.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid time-to-market and access to existing TVL (over $750M on Era), choose zkSync Era. If you prioritize absolute, dedicated throughput control and customizability for a hyper-scalable, app-specific chain, choose zkSync Hyperchains.
tldr-summary
zkSync Era vs. Hyperchains
TL;DR: Key Throughput Differentiators
Throughput isn't just TPS. It's about predictable capacity, cost, and control. Here's how the main L2 and its custom chains stack up.
01
zkSync Era: Shared, High-Capacity Base
Proven, high-throughput L2: Processes ~100-200 TPS with sub-second finality, leveraging a single, battle-tested sequencer and prover. This matters for applications needing robust, general-purpose scaling without managing chain infrastructure.
Trade-off: Performance is shared. During network congestion (e.g., major NFT mint), your app competes for block space, potentially facing variable gas fees.
100-200 TPS
Shared Capacity
< 1 sec
Finality Time
03
Hyperchains: Dedicated, Predictable Throughput
Guaranteed, isolated block space: Your chain has its own sequencer and prover, eliminating competition. This matters for enterprise applications, high-frequency trading, or gaming that require consistent sub-cent fees and predictable latency, regardless of activity on Era.
Trade-off: You must provision and manage this capacity, which has a fixed base cost.
Dedicated
Throughput
~$0.001
Predictable Tx Cost
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zkSync Hyperchains vs zkSync Era: Throughput & Performance Specs
Direct comparison of key performance metrics for sovereign rollups vs. the shared L2.
| Metric | zkSync Era (Shared L2) | zkSync Hyperchains (Sovereign) |
|---|---|---|
Theoretical Max TPS | ~20,000 | Unlimited (Independent) |
Transaction Finality | ~1 hour (L1 finality) | ~10 minutes (Hyperchain finality) |
Data Availability Cost | ~$0.10 per tx (on Ethereum) | $0.01 - $0.05 per tx (on Celestia/Avail) |
Sequencer Control | Matter Labs | Project/DAO Owned |
Custom Precompiles | ||
Native Token for Gas | ETH | Any ERC-20 |
ZK-ROLLUP HYPERSCALING SHOWDOWN
Throughput Cost Analysis: Gas Economics
Comparing transaction economics and scalability between the shared L2 and its sovereign L3 counterparts.
| Metric | zkSync Era (L2) | zkSync Hyperchains (L3) |
|---|---|---|
Max Theoretical TPS | ~2,000 | Unlimited (per chain) |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.01 |
Data Availability Cost | Ethereum Mainnet | Configurable (Ethereum, Celestia, DACs) |
Time to Finality | ~1 hour | < 10 minutes |
Sovereign Governance | ||
Custom Gas Token Support | ||
Native Account Abstraction |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Which: A Use Case Breakdown
zkSync Era for DeFi
Verdict: The established, secure base layer for high-value, composable applications. Strengths: Direct access to the massive liquidity and user base of the zkSync Era ecosystem (e.g., SyncSwap, Maverick Protocol, Velocore). Its security is anchored directly to Ethereum L1, providing the highest trust assumptions for managing significant TVL. The mature tooling (Hardhat plugins, Block Explorer) and established token standards (native account abstraction) reduce development risk. Trade-offs: Throughput is shared with all other dApps on the mainnet, leading to potential congestion during peak activity. Transaction fees, while low vs. Ethereum L1, are variable and higher than on a dedicated Hyperchain.
zkSync Hyperchains for DeFi
Verdict: A sovereign, high-performance environment for specialized or high-frequency financial products. Strengths: Guaranteed, isolated throughput is the key differentiator. A DeFi protocol can lease an entire Hyperchain, ensuring consistent sub-second finality and ultra-low, predictable fees for its users, ideal for order-book DEXs or perpetual futures. It enables custom gas token economics and governance, allowing a protocol to fully own its stack. Trade-offs: Requires bootstrapping its own liquidity and validator set (security budget). Cross-chain communication with zkSync Era or other chains adds latency and complexity via ZK Stack's native bridging.
pros-cons-a
zkSync Era vs. Hyperchains
zkSync Era: Pros and Cons for Throughput
Key strengths and trade-offs for transaction processing speed and capacity at a glance.
01
zkSync Era: High Base Throughput
Proven Mainnet Performance: Processes ~100-300 TPS, significantly higher than Ethereum's ~15 TPS. This matters for mass-market dApps like DEXs (SyncSwap) and NFT platforms (ZKS) that require consistent, high-volume transaction processing on a single, secure chain.
100-300 TPS
Peak Throughput
02
zkSync Era: Unified Liquidity & State
Single Shared State: All activity and TVL (~$750M) reside on one canonical L2. This matters for DeFi protocols requiring deep, unified liquidity pools and atomic composability between applications without cross-chain bridges.
$750M+
TVL
03
zkSync Hyperchains: Horizontal Scalability
Unbounded Theoretical Capacity: Each custom ZK Stack chain adds independent throughput. This matters for enterprise or gaming use cases like a dedicated chain for an on-chain game or a private institutional network that cannot be limited by a shared chain's block space.
04
zkSync Hyperchains: Tailored Performance
Customizable VM & Parameters: Developers can choose a VM (e.g., custom zkEVM) and adjust gas limits/block times for specific needs. This matters for specialized applications requiring deterministic, ultra-low latency (e.g., high-frequency trading, real-time simulations) that a general-purpose L2 cannot guarantee.
05
zkSync Era: Network Effect Bottleneck
Contention for Block Space: As adoption grows, peak demand (e.g., token launches, NFT mints) can lead to temporary fee spikes and latency, similar to Ethereum. This is a con for applications requiring guaranteed, low-cost execution regardless of mainnet activity.
06
zkSync Hyperchains: Fragmentation Cost
Liquidity & User Splitting: Each new chain fragments users, assets, and composability, requiring bridging. This is a major con for general-purpose dApps that rely on the broadest possible user base and seamless interaction with the core DeFi ecosystem on Era.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
zkSync Hyperchains vs zkSync Era: Throughput
A data-driven breakdown of scalability approaches. Hyperchains offer sovereign scaling, while Era provides unified security. Choose based on your throughput needs and operational tolerance.
01
Hyperchains: Horizontal Scalability
Unlimited theoretical TPS: Each Hyperchain is a separate ZK Rollup with its own sequencer and prover, enabling linear scaling. This matters for protocols like GMX or Uniswap V4 that require isolated, high-frequency trading environments without L1 congestion.
10,000+
Potential TPS per chain
02
Hyperchains: Custom Gas Tokens & Economics
Fee market isolation: Operators can set their own gas token (e.g., USDC, protocol token) and fee models. This matters for consumer apps and gaming studios like Immutable seeking predictable, low-cost transactions independent of ETH price volatility on the mainnet.
03
Era: Shared Security & Liquidity
Unified state and composability: All dApps (e.g., SyncSwap, Maverick Protocol) share a single liquidity pool and state. This matters for DeFi protocols where atomic composability and deep pooled liquidity are critical for efficient swaps and lending.
~3,000 TPS
Current Practical Limit
04
Era: Simpler Operational Model
No chain management overhead: Developers deploy smart contracts using familiar tools (Hardhat, Foundry) to a single, maintained network. This matters for startups and teams who want Ethereum scalability without the DevOps burden of running a consensus layer or data availability layer.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven framework to determine whether your project needs the sovereign scaling of Hyperchains or the shared security of the Era mainnet.
zkSync Era excels at providing a high-throughput, secure, and cost-effective L2 for general-purpose dApps. Its shared sequencer and unified state root ensure consistent performance and security, with current TPS in the hundreds and transaction fees often below $0.01. For projects like SyncSwap or Maverick Protocol, this offers a predictable, Ethereum-aligned environment with deep liquidity from a single, large TVL pool, making it ideal for DeFi and consumer applications that prioritize network effects and composability.
zkSync Hyperchains take a different approach by offering sovereign, application-specific chains. This results in a fundamental trade-off: you gain unlimited, customizable throughput (theoretically 1000s of TPS per chain) and control over your chain's economics (e.g., gas token, sequencer profits), but you sacrifice the instant, trustless composability and shared security of the mainnet. A Hyperchain is better suited for a high-frequency gaming ecosystem or a private enterprise consortium that requires its own data availability solution and validator set.
The key trade-off is between shared security & composability and sovereign scalability & customization. If your priority is launching a dApp that benefits from the existing Era DeFi ecosystem (e.g., a new lending protocol needing integration with EigenLayer and zkSync Name Service), choose zkSync Era. If you prioritize building a closed-loop application with extreme, dedicated throughput, need a custom data availability layer like Celestia, or require your own governance over upgrades, choose a zkSync Hyperchain.
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