Smart Contract Security Tooling: Slither vs Cargo-Audit vs Move Formal Verification

Focuses on contract code only: Does not audit dependencies (OpenZeppelin libraries) or the compiler toolchain itself. This matters if your supply chain security is a concern, as vulnerabilities can be imported.

No blockchain-specific checks: Finds generic Rust CVEs but cannot detect Solana- or SVM-specific logic errors (e.g., missing ownership checks). This matters for protocol logic security, requiring supplemental tools like cargo-geiger or cargo-deny.

Requires writing specifications: Developers must learn the Move Specification Language (MSL) to define properties, adding significant upfront development time. This matters for rapid prototyping or agile teams where speed is a priority.

Specific advantage: Part of the Trail of Bits suite, integrated with Foundry and Hardhat. Has over 200+ built-in detectors and supports custom rule writing in Python. This matters for EVM-native teams who need a tool that plugs directly into their existing CI/CD pipeline for automated security gates.

Specific advantage: Lightning-fast execution (<2 seconds for most projects) as it audits dependency graphs, not source code. Enforces a "known vulnerability zero" policy with minimal configuration. This matters for high-velocity teams who need a non-intrusive, mandatory check in every build to prevent introducing known bad dependencies.

Specific advantage: Uses the Move language's built-in specification language to formally prove correctness of critical invariants (e.g., "total supply is conserved"). This matters for asset-centric protocols (e.g., Libra/Diem legacy, Sui, Aptos) where guaranteeing the integrity of digital assets (coins, NFTs) is non-negotiable.

Specific disadvantage: Requires writing formal specifications in Move's specification language (MSL), a significant learning curve. Verification can be computationally expensive for large contracts. This matters for teams with limited formal methods expertise or those building rapidly iterating applications where specification upkeep is burdensome.

Limited to EVM bytecode semantics. Cannot analyze non-EVM languages like Rust or Move. High false-positive rate for complex logic, requiring manual triage. This is a problem for teams needing cross-chain security or those building with non-standard patterns where tooling assumptions break down.

Only checks dependencies, not contract logic. Must be paired with linters (Clippy) and fuzzers. No semantic understanding of blockchain-specific code (e.g., Solana's CPI, NEAR's storage). This is insufficient for teams that need to audit custom program invariants or business logic vulnerabilities beyond the standard library.

High learning curve requires writing formal specs. Move ecosystem only—useless for EVM or Rust-based chains. Performance overhead can slow development iteration. This is a barrier for rapid prototyping or teams without dedicated verification engineers. The toolchain is less mature than Slither's.

Limited third-party integration: While the Move Prover is powerful, the broader auditing toolkit (e.g., linters, advanced fuzzers) lags behind Solidity. Fewer than 10 major auditing firms have deep Move expertise versus 50+ for EVM, increasing reliance on the core teams at Aptos/Sui.

Finds bugs post-development: Slither and similar tools (MythX, Foundry's forge inspect) primarily identify issues after code is written. This contrasts with Move's design-time verification, leading to a longer fix-and-audit cycle. Misses deeper logical flaws that formal methods catch.

Only checks dependencies, not business logic: It secures the supply chain but offers zero analysis of your protocol's custom code. Teams must supplement it with custom audits, formal verification (e.g., using kani), or fuzzing, adding complexity versus Move's integrated approach.