Configurable Provers (e.g., RISC Zero, SP1) excel at developer flexibility and multi-chain compatibility because they are general-purpose, zero-knowledge virtual machines (zkVMs). For example, a team can write a custom prover in Rust or C++ for a novel consensus mechanism and deploy its proofs across Ethereum, Avalanche, and Polygon, leveraging ecosystems like EigenDA for data availability. This model prioritizes sovereignty over raw throughput.
LABS
Comparisons
Configurable Prover vs. Integrated Prover: A Rollup SDK Showdown
An in-depth analysis comparing the flexible, proof-system-agnostic approach of OP Stack with the high-performance, integrated ZK prover of ZK Stack. This guide provides CTOs and architects with the data to choose the right foundation for their L2 or L3.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Core Architectural Fork
The fundamental choice between a configurable and an integrated prover defines your stack's flexibility, cost, and performance envelope.
Integrated Provers (e.g., Polygon zkEVM, zkSync Era) take a different approach by tightly coupling the prover with a specific execution environment, like the EVM. This results in superior optimization for a known target. A key trade-off is that while they achieve higher theoretical TPS (e.g., Polygon zkEVM's 2,000+ TPS on testnet) and lower fees for standardized operations, they lock you into a specific L2 stack and virtual machine.
The key trade-off: If your priority is unmatched flexibility, protocol-level innovation, or multi-chain deployment, choose a Configurable Prover. If you prioritize immediate EVM-equivalent developer experience, predictable low costs, and leveraging an existing L2's security and liquidity (TVL), choose an Integrated Prover. Your choice dictates whether you are building a new universe or optimizing within an established one.
tldr-summary
Configurable Prover vs. Integrated Prover
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
Architectural trade-offs for zero-knowledge proof generation, based on production deployments from Starknet, Polygon zkEVM, and zkSync.
01
Choose Configurable Prover for Flexibility
Decoupled Architecture: Run different proving backends (e.g., Plonky2, Halo2, custom circuits) without forking the main client. This matters for protocols requiring specialized proving schemes (e.g., privacy-preserving DEXs, gaming) or teams that need to benchmark and optimize for cost/performance.
~40%
Potential Cost Reduction
02
Choose Integrated Prover for Simplicity
Turnkey Solution: The prover is a native component of the node software (e.g., zkSync Era, Scroll). This matters for teams prioritizing rapid deployment and maintenance, as it eliminates the complexity of managing, securing, and synchronizing separate proving services. Guarantees compatibility out-of-the-box.
< 1 week
Time to Testnet
04
Avoid Integrated Prover for Vendor Lock-in
Limited Optimization Paths: You are bound to the proving stack's performance and cost trajectory. This matters for high-throughput applications (e.g., order-book DEXs, social graphs) where proving cost is the primary bottleneck. Migrating to a faster prover later requires a full chain migration.
1.5-3x
Proving Cost Variance
CONFIGURABLE PROVER VS. INTEGRATED PROVER
Head-to-Head Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key technical and operational metrics for blockchain proving systems.
| Metric | Configurable Prover | Integrated Prover |
|---|---|---|
Prover Flexibility | ||
Time to Finality | ~10-20 min | < 2 sec |
Avg. Proof Generation Cost | $0.10 - $0.50 | $0.001 - $0.01 |
Developer Setup Complexity | High | Low |
Native Token Requirement | ||
Multi-Chain Support | ||
Prover Decentralization | Planned / Optional | Inherent |
pros-cons-a
OP Stack vs. Integrated Provers
Configurable Prover (OP Stack Model): Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs for teams choosing between a modular, configurable prover and a tightly integrated system.
02
OP Stack: Ecosystem & Tooling
Standardized Interfaces: Leverage a mature dev stack (Superchain, OP Chain Dev Kit) with shared infrastructure. This matters for teams prioritizing developer velocity and interoperability with other OP Chains (Base, Zora). Reduces time-to-market significantly.
40+
Chains Deployed
03
Integrated Prover: Performance & Simplicity
Optimized Throughput: A single, purpose-built stack (e.g., Polygon zkEVM, zkSync Era) offers tightly coupled proving for potentially higher transaction finality and lower proving latency. This matters for applications requiring maximal single-chain performance and predictable costs.
< 10 min
Finality (zkEVM)
04
Integrated Prover: Security & Cohesion
Unified Security Model: The core team maintains and audits the entire proving stack, reducing integration risk. This matters for teams that want a turnkey, battle-tested solution and prefer not to manage the complexity of prover selection and integration.
05
OP Stack: Complexity & Overhead
Integration Burden: You become responsible for selecting, integrating, and maintaining your prover client. This adds operational overhead and requires deep expertise in fault/validity proof systems. Not ideal for teams with limited cryptography resources.
06
Integrated Prover: Vendor Lock-in
Limited Portability: Migrating away from a monolithic L2 stack is difficult. You are tied to the prover's roadmap, performance, and economics. This matters for teams concerned with long-term flexibility and avoiding single-point dependencies.
pros-cons-b
CONFIGURABLE PROVER VS. INTEGRATED PROVER
Integrated Prover (ZK Stack Model): Pros and Cons
Key architectural trade-offs for teams building custom ZK L2s and L3s. The choice dictates your team's operational scope and long-term technical debt.
01
Integrated Prover: Key Strength
Unified Security & Performance: The prover, sequencer, and state tree are co-designed, like in zkSync Era. This eliminates cross-component bottlenecks, enabling ~100 TPS with sub-second finality for native token transfers. This matters for consumer dApps requiring predictable, fast UX.
02
Integrated Prover: Key Weakness
Vendor Lock-in & Upgrade Lag: Your chain is tied to the core team's proving system (e.g., Boojum for zkSync). Adopting a faster proof system (like Nova) requires a hard fork coordinated by the parent chain. This matters for protocols that need to rapidly integrate cutting-edge cryptography.
03
Configurable Prover: Key Strength
Prover Agnosticism & Future-Proofing: You can plug in different proof systems (RISC Zero, SP1) or even your own, as seen with Polygon CDK's optionality. This decouples innovation in proving from chain development. This matters for research-focused chains or those needing specialized VMs.
04
Configurable Prover: Key Weakness
Integration Complexity & Overhead: Your team must manage the integration layer between the sequencer, executor, and the external prover. This adds significant devops burden and can create ~100-300ms latency overhead versus integrated stacks. This matters for small teams with limited infra resources.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Configurable Prover for Architects
Verdict: The strategic choice for long-term flexibility and sovereignty. Strengths: Unlocks custom proving schemes (e.g., PlonK, STARKs) and domain-specific circuits tailored to your application's logic. This is critical for novel primitives like privacy-preserving DeFi or complex game state transitions. You maintain control over the proving stack, avoiding vendor lock-in with providers like Risc Zero or Succinct. The trade-off is a significant upfront R&D investment in circuit design and prover integration.
Integrated Prover for Architects
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for speed-to-market and resource efficiency. Strengths: Offers a battle-tested, optimized stack out-of-the-box, as seen with zkSync Era's Boojum or Polygon zkEVM. You inherit years of security audits and performance tuning. This drastically reduces development overhead, allowing teams to focus on application logic rather than cryptographic infrastructure. The constraint is alignment with the prover's inherent design choices and potential ecosystem dependencies.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on selecting the optimal prover architecture for your rollup.
Configurable Provers (e.g., RISC Zero, SP1) excel at developer flexibility and future-proofing because they allow you to define custom proving logic and integrate multiple proof systems (e.g., Groth16, Plonk). This is critical for protocols with unique state transitions or those anticipating new cryptographic breakthroughs. For example, a gaming rollup using a custom state model can optimize its prover for specific game logic, potentially reducing proof generation time by 20-40% compared to a one-size-fits-all solution.
Integrated Provers (e.g., zkSync Era's Boojum, Polygon zkEVM) take a different approach by tightly coupling the prover with a specific VM (like the EVM). This strategy results in superior developer experience and ecosystem compatibility, as it minimizes friction for Solidity developers and ensures seamless tooling integration. The trade-off is architectural rigidity; migrating to a more efficient proof system later may require a hard fork, as seen in zkSync's multi-year journey to its current Boojum prover.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing performance for a novel VM, controlling the tech stack, or preparing for post-quantum cryptography, choose a Configurable Prover. If you prioritize rapid time-to-market, leveraging existing Ethereum tooling (Hardhat, Foundry), and minimizing smart contract migration risk, choose an Integrated Prover. The decision ultimately hinges on whether you value long-term architectural sovereignty or immediate ecosystem leverage.
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