Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) excels at developer accessibility and ecosystem liquidity because of its mature, standardized environment. Porting a dApp from Ethereum mainnet to an L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism can be as simple as redeploying Solidity/Vyper contracts, granting immediate access to billions in TVL and tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask. This network effect is quantifiable: EVM chains collectively secure over $50B in DeFi TVL, offering unparalleled composability with protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Compound.
LABS
Comparisons
EVM vs Starknet: dApp Porting
A technical comparison for CTOs and architects evaluating the trade-offs between porting dApps to the established EVM ecosystem versus the high-performance Starknet ZK-Rollup.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Porting Dilemma
Choosing between EVM compatibility and Starknet's ZK-rollup architecture involves a fundamental trade-off between immediate reach and long-term scalability.
Starknet takes a different approach by using a Cairo VM and ZK-rollup technology. This results in superior scalability and lower transaction costs for complex computations, but requires a non-trivial rewrite from Solidity to Cairo. The trade-off is initial development friction for potentially orders-of-magnitude higher TPS and near-zero gas fees for users. Starknet's architecture is proven, settling proofs for dApps like dYdX and ImmutableX, demonstrating its strength for high-throughput applications like gaming and DeFi aggregation.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment, maximal liquidity, and leveraging existing Solidity talent, choose an EVM-compatible L2. If you prioritize ultimate scalability, minimal user fees for complex logic, and are building a compute-intensive dApp from the ground up, choose Starknet. The decision hinges on whether immediate ecosystem access or long-term architectural advantages align with your product roadmap.
tldr-summary
EVM vs Starknet
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
Critical strengths and trade-offs for porting dApps at a glance. The choice hinges on your priority: ecosystem liquidity or performance sovereignty.
01
EVM: Unmatched Ecosystem & Tooling
Specific advantage: Access to $50B+ TVL and 4,000+ dApps across chains like Arbitrum and Base. This matters for liquidity-dependent applications (DeFi, NFT marketplaces) where immediate user and capital reach is critical. Tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and Ethers.js are mature and standardized.
$50B+
EVM TVL
4,000+
dApps
03
Starknet: Hyper-Scalable Throughput
Specific advantage: Validity rollup architecture enables ~100 TPS with sub-$0.01 fees, scaling linearly with more proofs. This matters for high-frequency applications (gaming, order-book DEXs, social) where low, predictable cost per transaction is non-negotiable.
~100 TPS
Current Capacity
< $0.01
Typical Fee
05
Choose EVM for...
Liquidity & Market Fit: Your dApp's success depends on tapping into established capital pools (e.g., Aave, Uniswap clones). Rapid Deployment: You need to launch a proven model (DEX, lending) on a new chain with minimal dev overhead. Broad Developer Hiring: You prioritize a large, readily available talent pool skilled in Solidity.
06
Choose Starknet for...
Performance-Critical Apps: You're building an on-chain game or high-frequency DEX where EVM gas costs and speed are prohibitive. Architectural Innovation: Your protocol requires novel cryptographic primitives or state models (e.g., using STARKs for privacy). Long-Term Cost Control: You need predictable, ultra-low fees that scale with user growth, not congestion.
HEAD-TO-HEAD FEATURE MATRIX
EVM vs Starknet: dApp Porting Comparison
Direct comparison of key technical and ecosystem metrics for developers porting dApps.
| Metric | EVM (e.g., Ethereum L1) | Starknet (ZK-Rollup) |
|---|---|---|
Transaction Cost (Simple Swap) | $2 - $50 | < $0.01 |
Throughput (Theoretical TPS) | ~15 | ~1,000+ |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~15 min | ~12 sec |
Native Smart Contract Language | Solidity/Vyper | Cairo |
Porting Effort (from Solidity) | None (Native) | Significant Rewrite |
Developer Tooling Maturity | High (Hardhat, Foundry) | Growing (Scarb, Starkli) |
EVM Bytecode Compatibility |
pros-cons-a
PROS & CONS
EVM (Ethereum, L2s) vs Starknet: dApp Porting
Key strengths and trade-offs for migrating or building a new dApp. Starknet uses a ZK-Rollup architecture with a custom Cairo VM, requiring a different approach than EVM-compatible chains.
01
EVM Pro: Massive Developer & Tooling Ecosystem
Immediate access to 4M+ Solidity devs and battle-tested tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask. This matters for rapid prototyping and hiring, as you can leverage existing libraries (OpenZeppelin) and infrastructure (Alchemy, Infura). Porting is often a simple recompile.
02
EVM Pro: Unified Liquidity & Network Effects
Tap into $50B+ of TVL shared across Ethereum L1 and major L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base). This matters for DeFi and NFT projects requiring deep, composable liquidity. Users can bridge assets with familiar tools, reducing onboarding friction.
03
EVM Con: Inherent Scalability & Cost Ceiling
Limited by EVM's sequential execution, capping theoretical TPS even on L2s. This matters for high-frequency trading or mass-market gaming where sub-second finality and sub-cent fees are non-negotiable. You inherit the EVM's architectural constraints.
04
Starknet Pro: Native Performance & Cost Efficiency
Cairo VM enables parallel execution and cryptographic proofs, achieving ~100 TPS with fees often < $0.01. This matters for compute-intensive dApps like on-chain AI, full-loot RPGs, or perpetual DEXs where EVM gas costs would be prohibitive.
05
Starknet Pro: Future-Proof Security & Innovation
STARK proofs offer quantum resistance and the most robust cryptographic security. The ecosystem is built for novel primitives (e.g., account abstraction via native @argent). This matters for projects prioritizing long-term security or building unproven, complex logic.
06
Starknet Con: Steeper Learning & Porting Curve
Requires learning Cairo and new toolchains (Scarb, Starkli). Existing Solidity code cannot be directly deployed; it must be rewritten or use transpilers (Warp) with limitations. This matters for teams with tight deadlines or large, complex EVM codebases.
pros-cons-b
EVM vs Starknet: dApp Porting
Starknet Pros & Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for migrating or building dApps, based on technical architecture and ecosystem maturity.
01
EVM Pros: Developer Velocity
Massive existing tooling and talent pool: Leverage battle-tested frameworks like Hardhat, Foundry, and libraries like OpenZeppelin. This matters for teams prioritizing speed to market and leveraging Solidity expertise.
4M+
Solidity Devs
02
EVM Pros: Liquidity & Composability
Direct access to the largest DeFi ecosystem: Native integration with protocols like Aave, Uniswap, and Lido, and assets like WETH and stablecoins. This matters for dApps that require deep, immediate liquidity and cross-protocol interactions.
$50B+
EVM DeFi TVL
03
Starknet Pros: Scalability & Cost
Order-of-magnitude lower fees for complex logic: Starknet's Validity Rollup architecture batches thousands of transactions, making advanced DeFi, fully on-chain games, and account abstraction economically viable. This matters for compute-intensive dApps targeting mass adoption.
< $0.01
Complex Tx Cost
05
EVM Cons: Scalability Ceiling
Inherent gas limits and high L1 dependency: Even on L2s, gas costs for complex operations remain significant. Throughput is ultimately bounded by Ethereum's data availability. This matters for dApps with high-frequency transactions or complex state updates.
06
Starknet Cons: Ecosystem Immaturity
Smaller tooling and developer ecosystem: While growing, tools like Protostar and Katana lack the depth of EVM equivalents. The Cairo language has a steeper learning curve than Solidity. This matters for teams needing extensive third-party integrations or with tight deadlines.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
EVM for DeFi
Verdict: The incumbent standard for composability and liquidity. Strengths: Unmatched ecosystem of battle-tested protocols (Uniswap, Aave, Compound), massive TVL ($50B+), and seamless integration with existing wallets (MetaMask) and oracles (Chainlink). The developer tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) is mature, and the ERC-20/4626 standards are universal. Trade-off: High gas fees on mainnet and slower finality can hinder user experience for complex transactions. Scaling relies on optimistic or zk-rollups, adding a layer of complexity.
Starknet for DeFi
Verdict: The high-throughput, low-cost challenger for novel financial primitives. Strengths: Sub-cent transaction fees and near-instant finality enable micro-transactions and complex, stateful DeFi logic previously impossible. Native account abstraction (AA) improves UX. Cairo's safety features reduce smart contract bug risks. Trade-off: Ecosystem is younger with lower TVL. Composability is strong within Starknet but bridging liquidity from Ethereum has latency and cost. Requires learning Cairo and a new toolchain (Scarb, Starkli).
EVM VS STARKNET
Porting Paths and Technical Migration
A technical breakdown for teams evaluating the effort, tools, and architectural changes required to port a dApp between the EVM ecosystem and Starknet's Cairo-based environment.
Yes, porting is significantly easier than a ground-up rewrite, but it's not a simple copy-paste. Tools like the Solidity to Cairo transpiler (Warp) and the Cairo VM's EVM compatibility mode can automate much of the syntax conversion for core logic. However, you must still adapt to Cairo's unique architecture, such as its account abstraction model and storage patterns. The process is more akin to a major refactor than a direct migration.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between EVM and Starknet for dApp porting is a strategic decision between immediate reach and future-proof scalability.
EVM excels at developer accessibility and immediate user reach because of its massive, established ecosystem. Porting a Solidity dApp to an L2 like Arbitrum or Optimism can be achieved with minimal code changes, instantly tapping into a network of over 50 million unique addresses and a multi-billion dollar Total Value Locked (TVL). The tooling is mature, with battle-tested frameworks like Hardhat, Foundry, and a vast library of audited OpenZeppelin contracts, drastically reducing development risk and time-to-market.
Starknet takes a fundamentally different approach by using a ZK-STARK-based validity rollup and the Cairo programming language. This results in a trade-off: superior long-term scalability and lower transaction costs at the expense of a steeper initial learning curve. While porting requires a rewrite from Solidity to Cairo, tools like the Solidity to Cairo transpiler (Warp) and the native account abstraction standard offer a path forward. The payoff is access to Starknet's theoretically higher TPS ceiling and the cryptographic security guarantees of its proof system.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment, maximal liquidity access, and leveraging existing developer expertise, choose the EVM ecosystem on a leading L2. If you prioritize ultra-low, predictable transaction fees for complex logic, future-proof scalability for mass adoption, and are willing to invest in a new stack, choose Starknet. For CTOs with existing EVM dApps, a phased strategy—maintaining the core product on EVM while experimenting with a Cairo-based module on Starknet—can hedge bets effectively.
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