zkSync Era excels at developer adoption and EVM compatibility through its custom zkEVM (zkSync Virtual Machine). This focus on a Solidity-friendly environment, with native support for account abstraction via its LLVM-based compiler, has driven rapid ecosystem growth. For example, its Total Value Locked (TVL) of over $800M and integration with major protocols like Uniswap and Curve demonstrate strong market traction for EVM-native teams.
LABS
Comparisons
zkSync vs StarkNet
A technical comparison of two leading general-purpose ZK-Rollup L2 networks, analyzing their core architectures (zkEVM vs Cairo VM), proof systems (SNARKs vs STARKs), ecosystem maturity, and developer experience to guide infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The ZK-Rollup Contenders
A technical breakdown of zkSync Era and StarkNet, the leading general-purpose ZK-Rollups, focusing on their architectural trade-offs and ecosystem positioning.
StarkNet takes a different approach by prioritizing raw performance and long-term scalability with its Cairo VM and STARK proofs. This results in a trade-off: developers must learn Cairo, a purpose-built language, but gain access to theoretically higher throughput and more efficient proof generation. StarkNet's architecture, backed by StarkWare's validity proofs, is designed for complex applications like dYdX's order book, where computational integrity is paramount.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment with existing Solidity skills and tools, choose zkSync Era. If you prioritize maximizing computational scale for novel, complex logic and are willing to adopt a new stack, choose StarkNet. Your decision hinges on whether immediate ecosystem leverage or frontier scalability is the primary constraint for your protocol.
tldr-summary
zkSync vs StarkNet
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural and ecosystem trade-offs at a glance.
01
Choose zkSync for EVM Compatibility
Native EVM bytecode execution via zkEVM. This means existing Solidity/Vyper code, developer tools (Hardhat, Foundry), and wallets (MetaMask) work with minimal changes. This matters for rapid migration of existing dApps and onboarding traditional Web3 devs. The ecosystem (Aave, Uniswap V3, Curve) leverages this for faster deployment.
~90%
EVM Opcode Coverage
02
Choose StarkNet for Ultimate Scalability
Cairo VM and STARK proofs are designed for computational efficiency, enabling higher theoretical TPS and lower proving costs for complex logic. This matters for high-frequency trading (dYdX), gaming, and complex DeFi primitives where cost per transaction is critical at scale. StarkWare's fractal scaling (L3s via StarkEx) is production-proven.
~9k TPS
StarkEx Proven Capacity
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zkSync vs StarkNet: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key technical metrics and ecosystem features for two leading ZK-Rollups.
| Metric | zkSync Era | StarkNet |
|---|---|---|
Virtual Machine | EVM-Compatible (zkEVM) | Cairo VM (Custom) |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.50 - $1.50 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~15 minutes | ~3-5 hours |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Primary Programming Language | Solidity/Vyper | Cairo |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $750M+ | $150M+ |
Developer Tooling | Hardhat, Foundry | Protostar, Scarb |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zkSync vs StarkNet: Performance & Cost Benchmarks
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and ecosystem maturity for two leading ZK-Rollups.
| Metric | zkSync Era | StarkNet |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Cost (L2) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.50 - $1.50 |
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | 2,000+ | 10,000+ |
Time to Finality (L1) | ~15 minutes | ~12 hours |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Programming Language | Solidity/Vyper (EVM) | Cairo |
Mainnet Launch | March 2023 | November 2021 |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $750M+ | $150M+ |
pros-cons-a
ZK-ROLLUP SHOWDOWN
zkSync Era vs StarkNet: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of the two leading ZK-Rollup ecosystems, highlighting their architectural trade-offs and ideal use cases.
01
zkSync Era: Developer Experience
EVM-compatible bytecode: Uses a custom zkEVM (zkSync Virtual Machine) that supports Solidity and Vyper with minimal changes. This matters for teams seeking a smoother migration from Ethereum with access to familiar tools like Hardhat and Foundry.
EVM-Compatible
Bytecode Level
02
zkSync Era: Transaction Economics
Lower fixed-cost overhead: Uses a proof system (Boojum) optimized for common operations, often resulting in lower transaction fees for standard token transfers and swaps compared to other ZK-Rollups. This matters for high-frequency, low-value user applications.
< $0.10
Avg. Swap Cost
03
StarkNet: Scalability & Performance
High theoretical throughput: StarkNet's STARK-based proof system (Cairo VM) is optimized for complex computation, enabling higher TPS for applications with heavy logic. This matters for on-chain games, complex DeFi derivatives, and high-throughput social apps.
90+ TPS
Current Capacity
04
StarkNet: Security & Decentralization Path
Battle-tested cryptography: STARK proofs are post-quantum secure and do not require a trusted setup. The ecosystem emphasizes a clear path to decentralized provers and sequencers. This matters for institutions and protocols with the highest security requirements.
Post-Quantum
Proof Security
05
zkSync Era: Ecosystem & Liquidity
Strong early adoption: Backed by significant venture funding and integrations with major bridges (LayerZero, Axelar) and wallets (MetaMask, Ledger). High TVL concentrated in native DEXs like SyncSwap and lending protocols. This matters for projects needing immediate liquidity and user access.
$800M+
TVL
06
StarkNet: Innovation & Composability
Native account abstraction: Every account is a smart contract, enabling seamless gas sponsorship, batch transactions, and custom security models by default. This matters for projects building novel user onboarding flows or complex multi-step applications.
Native
Account Abstraction
pros-cons-b
Key Differentiators
zkSync vs StarkNet: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of two leading ZK-Rollup ecosystems. StarkNet uses a custom STARK-based VM (Cairo), while zkSync leverages a zkEVM for EVM compatibility.
01
StarkNet Pro: Unmatched Scalability & Proof Efficiency
STARK proofs scale better with transaction complexity than SNARKs. StarkEx (StarkNet's engine) has settled over $1T+ in volume. This matters for high-throughput DeFi protocols like dYdX and Sorare, where batch proofs handle millions of trades cost-effectively.
$1T+
Settled Volume
02
StarkNet Pro: Superior Long-Term Cost Structure
STARKs have no trusted setup and lower on-chain verification costs at scale. While current L1 data posting fees are high, the Cairo VM's computational efficiency and future data availability solutions (like Volition) position it for the lowest cost per complex transaction long-term. This matters for applications with heavy on-chain logic.
03
zkSync Pro: Best-in-Class EVM Compatibility
zkSync Era's zkEVM achieves ~99% bytecode-level compatibility with Ethereum. Developers can deploy Solidity/Vyper contracts with minimal changes, using familiar tools like Hardhat and Foundry. This matters for teams prioritizing a fast migration from Ethereum Mainnet with low rewrite costs.
~99%
EVM Bytecode Compatible
04
zkSync Pro: Stronger Ecosystem & Liquidity Today
Higher TVL and broader DApp deployment (e.g., Uniswap, Curve, Maker) due to earlier mainnet launch and easier onboarding. zkSync's native account abstraction (AA) is widely adopted, simplifying user onboarding. This matters for consumer apps needing deep liquidity and a ready user base now.
$1.2B+
Peak TVL (Era)
05
StarkNet Con: Steeper Developer Learning Curve
Cairo is a non-EVM language, requiring teams to learn a new paradigm and toolchain (Scarb, Starkli). While powerful for zero-knowledge circuits, this creates friction for Ethereum-native devs and slows ecosystem growth for standard DeFi/NFT applications.
06
zkSync Con: Higher Prover Costs for Complex Logic
EVM compatibility comes with a proving overhead. Complex, custom opcodes are more expensive to prove in a zkEVM versus a ZK-optimized VM like Cairo. This matters for applications with intensive on-chain computation (e.g., advanced gaming, order-book DEXs), where operational costs may be higher.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
zkSync for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for established, capital-intensive protocols. Strengths:
- EVM Compatibility: Full EVM equivalence (zkSync Era) means existing Solidity/Vyper contracts (e.g., Uniswap v3, Aave) deploy with minimal changes.
- Ecosystem Maturity: Higher TVL ($800M+), with major integrations like 1inch, Curve, and MakerDAO. Battle-tested in production.
- Developer Tooling: Robust Hardhat/Foundry plugins, native account abstraction, and a familiar Vyper/Solidity stack. Weaknesses: Lower theoretical throughput than StarkNet; some complex dApps may face gas optimization challenges.
StarkNet for DeFi
Verdict: The high-performance engine for novel, computationally intensive applications. Strengths:
- Proven Scalability: Cairo VM and STARK proofs enable massive throughput for complex logic (e.g., perpetual DEXs, exotic options).
- Lower Cost for Complex Ops: Cost advantage grows with transaction complexity; ideal for heavy on-chain computation.
- Innovation-First: Native support for account abstraction and a rapidly evolving standard library (e.g., Nile for dev tooling). Weaknesses: Cairo learning curve; smaller, though growing, DeFi TVL (~$150M) compared to zkSync.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between zkSync and StarkNet is a strategic decision based on your application's core requirements for developer velocity, cost structure, and scalability philosophy.
zkSync excels at providing a familiar, EVM-compatible developer experience and lower transaction costs for mainstream users. Its use of the zkEVM and Solidity/Vyper support allows for rapid porting of existing Ethereum dApps, significantly reducing migration friction. For example, its mainnet, zkSync Era, consistently demonstrates lower average transaction fees (often under $0.01) compared to Ethereum L1, making it attractive for high-frequency, low-value DeFi and gaming applications. Its focus on account abstraction as a first-class citizen also simplifies user onboarding.
StarkNet takes a different approach by prioritizing maximum scalability and proving efficiency through its custom Cairo VM and STARK proofs. This results in a trade-off: developers must learn a new language, but they gain access to a more performant and mathematically elegant environment for complex logic. StarkNet's architecture, powered by StarkWare, is designed for applications where computational integrity and massive scale are paramount, as evidenced by dApps like dYdX (v3) which leveraged StarkEx for its order book. Its fee model can be more predictable for complex computations.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer speed, EVM compatibility, and attracting mainstream Ethereum users with low fees, choose zkSync. Its ecosystem tools like Hardhat-zksync and integration with wallets like MetaMask provide a smoother path to production. If you prioritize ultimate scalability for computationally intensive applications, have specialized developer resources, and value long-term proof efficiency, choose StarkNet. Its native support for recursive proofs and the growing Cairo toolchain make it a powerhouse for novel DeFi primitives and high-throughput gaming.
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