EVM chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon, Base) dominate the landscape with their massive network effects and developer familiarity. Their primary strength is a vast, interoperable ecosystem of tools (Hardhat, Foundry), standards (ERC-20, ERC-721), and liquidity, with a collective TVL exceeding $50B. This makes them the default choice for projects prioritizing immediate user and capital reach, as migrating an existing Solidity codebase to an L2 like Arbitrum can be done with minimal friction.
LABS
Comparisons
EVM vs Move Chains: dApp Migration
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects evaluating the trade-offs between Ethereum Virtual Machine ecosystems and Move-based chains like Aptos and Sui for dApp development and migration.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A pragmatic comparison of EVM and Move-based ecosystems for developers planning a strategic dApp migration.
Move-based chains (Aptos, Sui, Movement) take a fundamentally different approach by designing a language and virtual machine from the ground up for secure digital asset management. The Move language's resource-oriented model and built-in formal verification features inherently prevent common vulnerabilities like reentrancy and double-spending. This results in a trade-off: superior security and parallel execution potential (Sui achieves 297k TPS in controlled tests) at the cost of a smaller, though growing, tooling ecosystem and a steeper learning curve for developers.
The key trade-off: If your priority is capital efficiency, a deep pool of Solidity talent, and proven composability, choose an EVM chain. If you prioritize uncompromising security for financial primitives, need maximal throughput for gaming/social apps, and can invest in learning a new stack, a Move-based chain is the strategic bet.
tldr-summary
EVM vs Move Chains
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural and ecosystem trade-offs for dApp migration at a glance.
01
EVM: Unmatched Developer Network
Dominant ecosystem: Over 4,000 active dApps and $60B+ in TVL across Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base. This matters for liquidity access and audience reach. Migration tools like Foundry and Hardhat are mature, and libraries like OpenZeppelin provide battle-tested security.
4,000+
Active dApps
$60B+
Aggregate TVL
04
Move: Parallel Execution & Scalability
Native parallel processing: Chains like Sui and Aptos use Move's data model to execute independent transactions concurrently. This matters for high-throughput applications like gaming or order-book DEXs, enabling 100K+ TPS in optimized cases versus EVM's sequential execution.
100K+
Peak TPS (Sui)
05
EVM: Fragmented User Experience
Gas fee volatility and complexity: Users must manage native gas tokens (ETH, MATIC) on each chain, with unpredictable costs. This matters for mass adoption and creates friction. Account abstraction (ERC-4337) is a patch, not a native solution.
06
Move: Nascent Tooling & Liquidity
Early-stage ecosystem: While growing, the Move ecosystem (Aptos, Sui) has <$1B aggregate TVL and fewer audited, production-ready libraries. This matters for teams needing robust oracles, lending protocols, and developer support immediately.
<$1B
Aggregate TVL
DAPP MIGRATION DECISION MATRIX
Feature Comparison: EVM vs Move Chains
Technical and ecosystem comparison for teams evaluating migration from EVM to Move-based chains.
| Metric | EVM (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum) | Move (e.g., Aptos, Sui) |
|---|---|---|
Programming Model | Solidity/Vyper (Object-Oriented) | Move (Resource-Oriented) |
Parallel Execution | ||
Avg. Transaction Cost (L2) | $0.10 - $0.50 | < $0.001 |
Peak TPS (Current) | ~4,000 (Arbitrum) | ~65,000 (Aptos) |
Time to Finality | ~15 min (Ethereum L1) | ~400ms - 3 sec |
Native Asset Standard | ERC-20 | Coin (Move Standard Library) |
Major DeFi TVL | $50B+ (Ethereum L2s) | $2B+ (Aptos + Sui) |
Tooling Maturity | High (Hardhat, Foundry) | Growing (Move CLI, TS SDKs) |
pros-cons-a
EVM vs Move Chains: dApp Migration
EVM Ecosystem: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for teams considering a migration or new deployment.
01
EVM: Unmatched Developer Network
Massive existing talent pool: Over 4,000 monthly active developers on Ethereum alone, with millions of deployed contracts. This matters for rapid hiring and access to battle-tested libraries like OpenZeppelin and Chainlink. The ecosystem includes mature tools (Hardhat, Foundry, MetaMask) and extensive documentation.
02
EVM: Deep Liquidity & Composability
Dominant DeFi TVL: Over $60B locked across Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base). This matters for dApps requiring instant liquidity (DEXs, lending) and composability with protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and MakerDAO. Interoperability is a solved problem via ERC standards.
03
Move: Superior Security Model
Resource-oriented programming: Assets are typed objects that cannot be copied or implicitly discarded, preventing common vulnerabilities like reentrancy and overflow. This matters for high-value financial dApps (exchanges, custody) where security is non-negotiable. Used by Aptos and Sui.
04
Move: Parallel Execution & High Throughput
Native transaction parallelism: Chains like Sui and Aptos achieve 100K+ TPS by processing independent transactions simultaneously. This matters for mass-market consumer applications (gaming, social) requiring low latency and high scalability without complex L2 fragmentation.
05
EVM: Fragmented Scaling & High Costs
L2 complexity: Scaling requires navigating a fragmented rollup ecosystem (ZK vs. Optimistic) with bridging risks and varying security models. Base L1 gas fees can still exceed $50 for complex interactions. This is a challenge for applications needing uniform, low-cost global access.
06
Move: Nascent Ecosystem & Tooling
Limited market maturity: Combined TVL for leading Move chains (Aptos, Sui) is under $1B. The tooling (SDKs, indexers, oracles) is less mature versus EVM's decade-long head start. This matters for teams needing off-the-shelf integrations and immediate user traction.
pros-cons-b
EVM vs Move Chains: dApp Migration
Move Ecosystem: Pros and Cons
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating a migration path.
01
EVM: Unmatched Developer Leverage
Massive existing tooling and talent: 30,000+ Solidity devs, $60B+ TVL in DeFi protocols (Aave, Uniswap), and battle-tested frameworks like Hardhat and Foundry. This matters for teams prioritizing speed-to-market and needing to hire from a large, experienced pool.
02
EVM: Fragmented Security Model
Inherits all historical vulnerabilities: Reentrancy, integer overflows, and delegatecall risks are the developer's responsibility. Requires extensive auditing (e.g., OpenZeppelin) and safe math libraries. This matters for teams building high-value DeFi where a single bug can lead to catastrophic losses.
03
Move: Built-in Asset Safety
Resource-oriented programming: Assets are non-copyable, non-droppable types enforced at the VM level. This eliminates entire classes of exploits like double-spending or accidental loss. This matters for financial primitives where asset integrity is non-negotiable.
04
Move: Nascent Ecosystem & Tooling
Smaller, growing community: ~1,000 active Move developers vs. Ethereum's tens of thousands. Limited mature frameworks (Move Prover for formal verification is a standout) and fewer production-ready oracles (Pyth, Switchboard) and indexers. This matters for teams that rely on a rich middleware stack.
05
EVM: Universal Interoperability
Standardized cross-chain bridges: Seamless asset transfer via LayerZero, Axelar, and Wormhole connecting 50+ chains. This matters for dApps requiring multi-chain liquidity and user bases, like cross-chain lending or omnichain NFTs.
06
Move: Superior Parallel Execution
Native transaction parallelism: Aptos & Sui use Block-STM and object-centric models for 10,000-160,000 TPS in optimal conditions. This matters for high-throughput applications like order-book DEXs (e.g., Econia on Aptos) or gaming economies where latency is critical.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
EVM for DeFi
Verdict: The incumbent standard for composability and liquidity. Strengths: Unmatched TVL (over $50B across Ethereum L2s), deep liquidity pools, and a massive, battle-tested ecosystem of protocols (Uniswap, Aave, Compound). The ERC-20 standard is universal, and developer tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) is mature. Interoperability via bridges and shared tooling is a major advantage. Trade-offs: Higher gas fees on Ethereum L1 can limit user accessibility, and contract vulnerabilities remain a persistent risk.
Move for DeFi
Verdict: A superior technical foundation for secure, high-throughput financial primitives. Strengths: The resource-oriented model and bytecode verification provide unparalleled security for asset handling, as seen in Sui and Aptos. Transactions can be parallelized, enabling high TPS (Sui: 297k peak). Lower, predictable fees enhance user experience. Trade-offs: Fragmented liquidity across new ecosystems (Sui, Aptos, Movement), less mature oracles (Pyth, Switchboard), and a steeper learning curve for developers.
TECHNICAL COMPARISON
Migration Path: From EVM to Move
For CTOs and architects evaluating a move from Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) chains to Move-based ecosystems like Aptos or Sui, this breakdown covers the critical technical, cost, and strategic differences you need to plan your migration.
Yes, Aptos and Sui achieve significantly higher theoretical throughput than current EVM L2s. Aptos benchmarks show 30,000+ TPS in controlled environments, and Sui's parallel execution can scale horizontally. In contrast, Arbitrum One handles ~40,000 TPS for simple transfers but far less for complex smart contracts. However, real-world EVM L2 TPS is often bottlenecked by Ethereum's data availability costs. Move chains have a native architectural advantage with parallel execution, but EVM's mature ecosystem offers proven, stable performance for most DeFi applications today.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A final, data-driven breakdown to guide your dApp's foundational blockchain choice.
EVM chains excel at developer accessibility and network effects because of their mature, standardized tooling and massive existing user base. For example, the combined DeFi TVL across major EVM chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon) exceeds $50B, and frameworks like Hardhat and Foundry support rapid deployment. Migrating an existing Solidity dApp to another EVM L2 like Optimism or Base can be accomplished in days, leveraging battle-tested infrastructure like MetaMask and The Graph.
Move-based chains (Aptos, Sui) take a fundamentally different approach by prioritizing security and parallel execution through a resource-oriented programming model. This results in a trade-off: superior theoretical throughput (Sui claims 297,000 TPS for simple payments) and built-in safety against reentrancy attacks, but at the cost of a smaller, though growing, developer ecosystem and less interoperability with the dominant EVM tooling stack.
The key architectural trade-off: EVM offers composability and speed to market, while Move offers performance and security by design. An NFT marketplace prioritizing existing liquidity and wallet compatibility should choose an EVM chain. A high-frequency trading dApp or novel game requiring maximal throughput and asset safety should evaluate a Move chain.
Consider an EVM chain if your priority is: - Minimizing migration cost and time - Tapping into the deepest liquidity pools (DeFi, NFTs) - Leveraging the largest pool of Solidity developers - Ensuring maximum composability with protocols like Uniswap and Aave.
Choose a Move chain when your priority is: - Building applications where transaction speed and finality are paramount - Developing novel asset-centric models (e.g., dynamic NFTs, in-game objects) - Willing to invest in training developers on a new paradigm for long-term architectural benefits.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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