Solidity excels at developer adoption and ecosystem maturity because of its first-mover advantage on Ethereum. For example, its massive network effect is evident in the $50B+ Total Value Locked (TVL) across EVM chains like Arbitrum, Polygon, and Base, supported by battle-tested tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and OpenZeppelin libraries. This creates a vast talent pool and a predictable deployment path for EVM-compatible L2s and sidechains.
LABS
Comparisons
Move vs Solidity for Cross-Chain Deployments
A technical analysis comparing the resource-oriented Move language (Aptos, Sui) against Solidity for architects building high-throughput, secure assets and protocols intended for multi-chain deployment.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Cross-Chain Language Dilemma
Choosing a smart contract language is a foundational decision that dictates your protocol's security, scalability, and cross-chain portability.
Move takes a fundamentally different approach by prioritizing asset safety and formal verification through its resource-oriented model. This results in a trade-off: enhanced security against reentrancy and overflow bugs—critical for high-value DeFi protocols like Aptos' and Sui's native DEXs—but a steeper learning curve and a younger, though rapidly growing, tooling ecosystem (e.g., MoveProver, Sui Move).
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate developer leverage, deep liquidity, and multi-chain deployment across the dominant EVM landscape, choose Solidity. If you prioritize mathematically-verifiable security for novel asset-centric applications and are building on or bridging to next-gen L1s like Aptos, Sui, or Movement, choose Move.
tldr-summary
Move vs Solidity for Cross-Chain Deployments
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven comparison of the two dominant smart contract languages for deploying across multiple blockchain ecosystems.
03
Solidity: Unmatched Ecosystem & Tooling
Dominant market share: Powers over 80% of DeFi's $50B+ TVL across Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, and other EVM chains. This matters for protocols requiring deep liquidity and composability (e.g., yield aggregators, perpetuals). Tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and OpenZeppelin are battle-tested, with 4,000+ Solidity repos on GitHub.
80%+
DeFi TVL Share
4000+
Active Repos
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison: Move vs Solidity
Direct comparison of key architectural and ecosystem metrics for cross-chain deployment decisions.
| Metric | Move (Aptos/Sui) | Solidity (EVM) |
|---|---|---|
Native Asset Model | Resource-oriented (prevents double-spend) | Balance-oriented (requires explicit checks) |
Cross-Chain Standardization | Emerging (Aptos, Sui, 0L) | Mature (Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Base) |
Formal Verification | Native support (Move Prover) | Third-party tools (Certora, Scribble) |
Avg. Gas Cost (Simple Transfer) | < $0.001 | $0.50 - $5.00 |
Max Theoretical TPS | 160,000+ (Aptos) | ~100,000 (Solana via Neon EVM) |
Active Developer Ecosystem | 2,000+ | 20,000+ |
Dominant Deployment Chains | Aptos, Sui | Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Base |
pros-cons-a
LANGUAGE SHOWDOWN
Solidity vs. Move: Pros and Cons for Cross-Chain
Choosing a smart contract language for a multi-chain future is a foundational decision. This comparison breaks down the key trade-offs between the incumbent and the challenger.
01
Solidity's Unmatched Ecosystem
Dominant market share: Powers over 90% of DeFi's $50B+ TVL across EVM chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon. This translates to instant composability with thousands of existing protocols (Uniswap, Aave, Compound) and a mature toolchain (Hardhat, Foundry, OpenZeppelin). For cross-chain deployments, this means your dApp can leverage the deepest liquidity and developer network from day one.
90%+
DeFi TVL Share
4,000+
Active GitHub Repos
02
Move's Inherent Security
Resource-oriented model: Assets are distinct types that cannot be copied or implicitly discarded, eliminating entire classes of vulnerabilities like reentrancy and double-spends common in Solidity. Formal verification readiness: Move's bytecode is designed for easy formal verification (e.g., with the Move Prover), enabling mathematical proof of critical contract properties. For high-value cross-chain assets, this provides a stronger security foundation by design.
0
Major Reentrancy Hacks
04
Move's Fragmented Landscape
Multiple, incompatible dialects: Sui Move and Aptos Move have diverging object models and standard libraries, creating silos. A contract written for Aptos cannot deploy to Sui without significant changes. Nascent tooling and liquidity: While growing, the Move ecosystem lacks the breadth of battle-tested oracles (Chainlink), indexers (The Graph), and yield markets. Cross-chain deployments between Move chains are still in early development compared to the mature EVM bridge ecosystem.
2
Major Dialects
pros-cons-b
TECHNICAL COMPARISON
Move (Aptos/Sui) vs Solidity: Pros and Cons for Cross-Chain
Key strengths and trade-offs for deploying dApps across multiple chains. Evaluate based on security, developer velocity, and ecosystem reach.
02
Move: Parallel Execution
Native transaction parallelism (Block-STM in Aptos, object-centric in Sui) enables 10k-100k+ TPS for non-conflicting transactions. This matters for high-throughput cross-chain applications like gaming or order-book DEXs that aggregate liquidity from multiple chains.
100k+
Peak TPS (Sui)
< 1 sec
Finality (Aptos)
03
Solidity: Massive Ecosystem & Tooling
Dominant market share: $70B+ TVL across EVM chains (Arbitrum, Polygon, Base). Tools like Foundry, Hardhat, and OpenZeppelin are battle-tested. This matters for rapid cross-chain deployment where you need existing liquidity, oracles (Chainlink), and wallet support (MetaMask) on day one.
70%+
DeFi TVL Share
4,000+
Mainnet dApps
05
Move: Formal Verification Ready
Bytecode-level specification language (Move Prover) allows mathematical proof of contract invariants. This matters for institutional-grade cross-chain infrastructure (e.g., custody solutions, regulated assets) where audit certainty is critical.
06
Solidity: Larger Talent Pool
~1M developers familiar with JavaScript/TypeScript can transition to Solidity faster than learning Move's Rust-like semantics. This matters for teams scaling to 50+ engineers who need to hire quickly and maintain cross-chain codebases.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Move or Solidity
Solidity for DeFi
Verdict: The incumbent standard for composability and liquidity. Strengths:
- Proven Composability: Unmatched ecosystem of integrated protocols (Aave, Uniswap, Compound).
- Deep Liquidity: Dominant TVL across Ethereum L1 and L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base).
- Battle-Tested Security: Extensive audit history and formal verification tools (Certora, Slither). Trade-off: High gas costs on L1 necessitate L2 deployment for scalability.
Move for DeFi
Verdict: A superior architectural choice for novel, high-security financial primitives. Strengths:
- Asset Safety: Built-in resource types prevent double-spending and unauthorized creation.
- Formal Verification: The Move Prover enables mathematical correctness guarantees from day one.
- Parallel Execution: Native support on Aptos and Sui enables high TPS for order books and AMMs. Trade-off: Smaller ecosystem and shallower liquidity versus Ethereum. Example: Pontem Network's liquid staking and AMM on Aptos leverage Move's parallel execution.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Move and Solidity for cross-chain deployments is a strategic decision between architectural purity and ecosystem leverage.
Move excels at providing a secure, asset-oriented foundation for high-value, interoperable applications because of its built-in resource model and bytecode verifier. For example, protocols like Aptos and Sui, built on Move, demonstrate its capability for high-throughput DeFi, with Aptos achieving over 10,000 TPS in controlled environments and emphasizing secure cross-chain asset representations through native bridges.
Solidity takes a different approach by leveraging its massive, established ecosystem of tooling, developers, and composable protocols. This results in a trade-off: you gain immediate access to billions in TVL and battle-tested libraries like OpenZeppelin, but must manage the inherent security risks of the EVM and rely on external bridging solutions (e.g., LayerZero, Axelar) which add complexity and trust assumptions to your cross-chain architecture.
The key trade-off: If your priority is security-first design for novel financial primitives and you control the destination chain's environment (e.g., building an Aptos dApp), choose Move. If you prioritize rapid deployment, maximum liquidity access, and existing developer familiarity across chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon, choose Solidity and invest rigorously in your cross-chain messaging layer.
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