zkSync Era excels at providing a seamless, account-based privacy experience for users and developers through its native zkPorter and ZKsync Portal. Its architecture, built on the zkEVM model, allows for privacy features like confidential transfers to be integrated directly into familiar smart contracts, reducing development friction. This is evidenced by its rapid adoption, with over $800M in TVL and support for major wallets like MetaMask and Argent, making privacy an accessible feature rather than a separate protocol.
LABS
Comparisons
zkSync Era vs. StarkNet (Privacy Layer Integration)
A technical comparison of how zkSync Era and StarkNet approach on-chain privacy, evaluating native protocol features like ZK Porter against modular, SDK-driven solutions for developers and CTOs.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Privacy Paradigm for General-Purpose zkEVMs
A technical breakdown of how zkSync Era and StarkNet approach privacy, revealing a fundamental trade-off between developer convenience and cryptographic flexibility.
StarkNet takes a fundamentally different approach by treating privacy as an application-layer concern, enabled by its Cairo VM and STARK proofs. This grants developers maximal flexibility to build custom privacy-preserving logic—such as stealth payments or private DAOs—using tools like zk-STARKs and the StarkNet OS. However, this power comes with the trade-off of increased complexity; developers must architect privacy from the ground up, which can slow time-to-market compared to turnkey solutions.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user-friendly, integrated privacy for mainstream DeFi and gaming applications with a shorter development cycle, choose zkSync Era. If you prioritize maximum cryptographic flexibility and need to build novel, custom privacy primitives (e.g., for identity or complex financial instruments), choose StarkNet.
tldr-summary
zkSync Era vs. StarkNet
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for privacy and application development at a glance.
01
Choose zkSync Era for EVM-Equivalent Privacy
Native account abstraction & stealth addresses: Every account is a smart contract, enabling built-in privacy features like stealth address generation. This matters for dApps requiring user privacy by default, such as private DeFi or identity protocols, without breaking EVM tooling.
02
Choose StarkNet for Advanced, Programmable Privacy
Cairo-native privacy primitives: Developers can build custom privacy logic (e.g., confidential state, private proofs) directly into smart contracts using the Cairo VM. This matters for complex applications like private voting, confidential DAOs, or institutional finance that require bespoke privacy guarantees.
03
Choose zkSync Era for Developer Velocity
Full Solidity/Vyper compatibility: Leverage existing tools (Hardhat, Foundry) and libraries with minimal changes. This matters for teams migrating from Ethereum Mainnet or other L2s who need to implement privacy features quickly and maintain a large existing codebase.
04
Choose StarkNet for Maximum Scalability & Cost Efficiency
Higher theoretical TPS & lower proving costs: StarkNet's STARK proofs and Cairo VM are optimized for complex computations at scale. This matters for privacy applications with high transaction volume (e.g., private gaming, micro-transactions) where long-term cost per private tx is critical.
ZK-ROLLUP PRIVACY LAYER COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Privacy Architecture
Direct comparison of privacy-enhancing features and cryptographic implementations for zkSync Era and StarkNet.
| Privacy Feature | zkSync Era | StarkNet |
|---|---|---|
Native Account Abstraction Privacy | ||
Transaction Data Hiding | On L1 only | On L1 & L2 (Volition) |
Underlying Proof System | ZK-SNARKs (Plonk) | ZK-STARKs |
Quantum Resistance | ||
Privacy-Focused dApp Ecosystem | Aztec Connect (deprecated) | ZKX, Braavos Wallet |
Custom Privacy Smart Contracts | ||
Trusted Setup Required | ||
Data Availability Mode | ZK-Rollup only | ZK-Rollup or Validium (via Volition) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
zkSync Era vs. StarkNet: Privacy Layer Integration
Key strengths and trade-offs for teams evaluating privacy solutions on ZK-Rollups.
03
zkSync Con: Centralized Data Availability Guardians
Trusted Committee Model: zkPorter's data availability relies on a proof-of-stake committee of Guardians, introducing a liveness assumption distinct from Ethereum's consensus. While secured by staked ETH, this is a trade-off versus pure Layer 1 security. For protocols like Aave or Uniswap V3 forks requiring maximal censorship resistance, the standard zkSync rollup mode (full data on L1) is still recommended.
04
StarkNet Con: Steeper Development & Audit Complexity
Cairo Language Barrier: Implementing custom privacy features requires deep expertise in Cairo, a non-EVM native language. This increases audit costs and limits the pool of developers compared to zkSync's Solidity focus. Tools like Foundry and Hardhat have mature support for zkSync, while StarkNet's Protostar and Katana are still evolving, adding risk for teams with tight migration deadlines.
pros-cons-b
zkSync Era vs. StarkNet
StarkNet: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for privacy layer integration at a glance.
01
zkSync Era: Superior Developer Experience
EVM-compatible privacy: Uses the zkEVM architecture for near-perfect EVM bytecode compatibility, allowing developers to deploy existing Solidity/Vyper contracts with minimal changes. This drastically reduces the learning curve and migration cost for teams like Aave or Uniswap looking to add privacy features.
02
zkSync Era: Lower Transaction Costs
Cost-effective for users: Leverages ZK Rollup efficiency with a focus on affordability. With an average transaction fee of ~$0.10 (vs. L1 Ethereum's $5+), it's more viable for privacy-focused dApps expecting high-volume, low-value transactions, such as private gaming or micro-payments.
03
StarkNet: Unmatched Proof Efficiency & Scalability
STARK proofs for complex logic: Uses a computationally superior proof system (STARKs) that scales better with transaction complexity. This is critical for advanced privacy applications like zkSNARK-based private voting (e.g., SnapshotX) or complex DeFi strategies where proof generation cost is a bottleneck.
04
StarkNet: Cairo VM for Custom Privacy Primitives
Native support for custom logic: The Cairo VM is built for zero-knowledge proofs from the ground up. This allows protocol architects to design novel privacy primitives (e.g., stealth addresses, confidential assets) that are impossible or inefficient on EVM-based chains. Vital for bespoke protocols like StarkWare's own ZKX perpetuals exchange.
05
zkSync Era: Weaker Long-Term Privacy Guarantees
Reliance on trusted setup: Its zkSNARK-based system (Plonk) requires a trusted setup ceremony, introducing a theoretical cryptographic weakness. For high-value, institutional privacy applications (e.g., private institutional settlements), this can be a non-starter compared to StarkNet's trustless STARKs.
06
StarkNet: Steeper Learning Curve & Tooling Gap
Cairo language barrier: Developers must learn Cairo, a non-EVM language, which slows onboarding. While tools like Protostar and Starknet.js exist, the ecosystem lacks the depth of Foundry/Hardhat plugins available on zkSync Era, increasing development time for new teams.
PRIVACY LAYER INTEGRATION
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
zkSync Era for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic, EVM-equivalent choice for mainstream DeFi with privacy aspirations. Strengths: Seamless integration of privacy via zk-SNARKs and ZK Stack custom chains. High EVM compatibility means existing Solidity/Vyper contracts for Tornado Cash-style mixers or Aztec Connect-like shields can be adapted with minimal friction. Native account abstraction enables stealth transaction patterns. zkPorter offers a data-availability trade-off for ultra-low-cost private settlements. Weaknesses: Privacy is an application-layer feature, not a network default. Requires explicit integration of cryptographic primitives like RLN (Rate Limiting Nullifiers) or Semaphore. Key Metric: ~100 TPS for private settlements, with fees 10-50x lower than Ethereum L1.
StarkNet for DeFi
Verdict: The high-throughput, computation-heavy choice for novel private financial instruments. Strengths: Cairo VM and STARK proofs excel at complex, batched private computations. Ideal for building ZK-rollup-native AMMs (e.g., private order-book DEXs) or privacy-preserving lending pools with zero-knowledge credit scoring. Volition mode lets users choose data availability (on-chain for high-value, off-chain for cheap). Weaknesses: Steeper learning curve with Cairo. Less direct compatibility with Ethereum's DeFi tooling (Hardhat, Foundry). Privacy must be engineered from the ground up. Key Metric: Proves ~10k-100k private computations per batch, enabling complex logic at scale.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on choosing between zkSync Era and StarkNet for privacy-focused applications.
zkSync Era excels at developer experience and ecosystem integration because of its EVM compatibility and established tooling like Hardhat and Foundry. For example, its ~3,000 TPS and sub-$0.10 transaction fees for simple transfers create a low-friction environment for deploying privacy-preserving DeFi apps like zk.money. Its recent $200M+ TVL growth demonstrates strong market adoption, making it a pragmatic choice for teams needing to integrate with existing Ethereum wallets and infrastructure.
StarkNet takes a different approach by prioritizing ultimate scalability and cryptographic flexibility with its Cairo VM and STARK proofs. This results in a trade-off of a steeper learning curve but enables more complex, custom privacy logic. StarkNet's architecture supports recursive proofs, allowing for theoretically unlimited throughput, which is critical for high-volume, privacy-centric applications like gaming or decentralized social networks that require batching thousands of actions.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment, EVM compatibility, and lower immediate costs, choose zkSync Era. Its mature ecosystem and familiar toolchain reduce time-to-market for privacy layers. If you prioritize maximizing long-term scalability, building novel cryptographic primitives, or handling extreme transaction volumes, choose StarkNet. Its Cairo-based stack offers greater flexibility for pioneering new forms of on-chain privacy.
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