Anchor excels at developer experience and rapid prototyping on Solana by providing a batteries-included framework. It abstracts away low-level complexities like PDAs (Program Derived Addresses) and CPI (Cross-Program Invocation) with a robust, opinionated structure of declare_id!, #[account], and #[error_code]. For example, a basic token program can be scaffolded in minutes, leveraging Anchor's IDL (Interface Description Language) for automatic client generation in TypeScript, Python, or Rust. This ecosystem is tightly integrated with tools like Solana Playground and the Anchor CLI.
LABS
Comparisons
Anchor vs Starknet Tooling
A technical comparison of the Anchor Framework for Solana and Starknet's Cairo-based tooling. We analyze development paradigms, ecosystem maturity, and performance trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A technical breakdown of the foundational tooling philosophies for building on the Solana and Ethereum ecosystems.
Starknet tooling takes a different approach by focusing on the Cairo programming language and a modular, permissionless proving stack. This results in a steeper initial learning curve but offers unparalleled flexibility for custom logic and verifiable computation. The ecosystem, featuring tools like scarb for package management, starknet-devnet for local testing, and Starkli for CLI interactions, is built for developers prioritizing cryptographic correctness and the ability to leverage STARK proofs for complex, scalable applications like dYdX or Sorare.
The key trade-off: If your priority is speed to market, a familiar Rust-like environment, and building high-throughput DeFi or NFT applications on Solana, choose Anchor. If you prioritize maximizing Ethereum security via validity proofs, require custom cryptographic primitives, and are building a complex, computation-heavy L2 application, choose Starknet and its Cairo toolchain.
tldr-summary
Anchor vs Starknet Tooling
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for Solana's Anchor and Starknet's native Cairo tooling.
01
Anchor: Developer Velocity
Rust-based framework with built-in safety: Provides a batteries-included experience with IDL generation, client SDKs, and a local test validator. This matters for teams wanting to deploy Solana programs quickly with minimal boilerplate and strong type safety.
02
Anchor: Mature Ecosystem
Established, battle-tested standard: Powers major protocols like Jupiter, Drift, and Marinade Finance. With over 2,500+ repositories using Anchor, developers benefit from extensive documentation, tutorials, and community support. This matters for production deployments requiring stability.
03
Starknet: Cairo Language Power
Purpose-built for ZK-proofs: Cairo is a Turing-complete language designed for STARKs, enabling complex logic with verifiable computation. This matters for applications needing custom cryptographic primitives, privacy, or complex off-chain logic verified on-chain.
04
Starknet: Native Account Abstraction
First-class smart accounts (AA): Every account is a smart contract, enabling sponsored transactions, social recovery, and batched operations out-of-the-box. This matters for building superior UX-focused dApps and abstracting away wallet complexity.
05
Starknet: Scalability & Cost Predictability
ZK-Rollup with bounded fees: Transaction costs are dominated by proof verification, not computation, leading to predictable, low fees for complex operations. This matters for high-throughput DeFi or gaming applications where gas spikes are unacceptable.
06
Anchor: Synchronous Composability
Atomic cross-program calls within a single block: Programs on Solana can call each other synchronously, enabling complex, interdependent transactions. This matters for building highly integrated DeFi legos like on-chain order books or lending aggregators.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Anchor vs Starknet Tooling
Direct comparison of development frameworks for Solana and Starknet.
| Metric / Feature | Anchor (Solana) | Starknet Tooling (Cairo) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Language | Rust | Cairo |
IDL Generation | ||
Built-in Account & State Management | ||
Native Cross-Program Invocation (CPI) | ||
Local Test Validator Integration | ||
On-Chain Program Upgradability | via Buffer | via Class Hash |
Primary CLI Command | anchor deploy | sncast deploy |
pros-cons-a
DEVELOPER EXPERIENCE COMPARISON
Anchor Framework vs. Starknet Tooling
A data-driven breakdown of the core strengths and trade-offs between Solana's Anchor and Starknet's Cairo tooling for smart contract development.
01
Anchor: Rapid Prototyping
Specific advantage: Pre-built account validation, serialization, and instruction dispatch. This matters for teams needing to launch an MVP in days, not weeks. The framework's CLI and IDL generator automate boilerplate, enabling developers to focus on business logic.
~70%
Less Boilerplate
02
Anchor: Solana Ecosystem Fit
Specific advantage: Native integration with Solana's high-throughput runtime. This matters for DeFi and high-frequency applications requiring sub-second finality and low fees (<$0.01). Tools like anchor test and anchor deploy provide a seamless path from localnet to mainnet.
5K+ TPS
Network Capacity
05
Choose Anchor for...
- High-throughput consumer apps (NFT drops, prediction markets)
- Teams prioritizing speed-to-market and familiar Rust workflows
- Applications where ultra-low, predictable fees are a primary requirement
- Integration with Solana's native programs (e.g., Token-2022, Name Service)
06
Choose Starknet for...
- Applications requiring verifiable computation or privacy (ZK-based games, identity)
- Protocols that must settle on Ethereum for maximum security/decentralization
- Teams with existing EVM/Solidity expertise looking to explore ZK rollups
- Projects leveraging Starknet's native account abstraction for superior UX
pros-cons-b
ANCHOR VS STARKNET
Starknet Tooling: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for Solana's Anchor Framework versus Starknet's native Cairo tooling.
04
Starknet: Cost Efficiency at Scale
Batch Verification Economics: Starknet's L2 architecture bundles thousands of transactions into a single Ethereum proof, reducing fees for users by 10-100x compared to L1 execution. This matters for high-frequency applications like perp DEXs or social apps targeting mass adoption.
05
Anchor: Limited to Solana VM
Vendor Lock-in: Anchor's abstractions and generated clients are tightly coupled to the Solana Sealevel runtime. This matters for teams with multi-chain strategies or those concerned about single-chain execution risk.
06
Starknet: Immature Tooling & Debugging
Early-Stage Friction: The Cairo toolchain (Scarb, Starknet Foundry) is evolving, with less mature debuggers, testing frameworks, and IDE support vs. Solana's. This matters for developers accustomed to the polished experience of Rust/Anchor and can increase development time for complex contracts.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Project
Anchor for DeFi
Verdict: Superior for rapid, secure, and composable Rust-based DeFi. Strengths:
- Batteries-Included Framework: Pre-built modules for core DeFi primitives (lending, AMMs, yield) drastically reduce development time and audit surface.
- Rust & CosmWasm: Leverages a memory-safe language and a battle-tested execution environment, a critical advantage for high-value financial applications.
- Strong IBC Composability: Native cross-chain interoperability via IBC allows for novel multi-chain DeFi strategies and liquidity aggregation. Trade-offs: Ecosystem is Cosmos-centric; lacks the direct Ethereum liquidity and user base of L2s.
Starknet for DeFi
Verdict: Optimal for scaling complex, data-heavy Ethereum-native DeFi. Strengths:
- Ethereum Security & Liquidity: Inherits Ethereum's security as a Validity Rollup and provides direct access to its massive TVL via bridges and shared sequencers.
- Cairo & STARKs: The Cairo language is purpose-built for scalable, provable computation, enabling complex financial logic (e.g., perpetuals, exotic options) at low cost.
- Account Abstraction First: Native account abstraction (AA) enables superior UX (sponsored transactions, social recovery) crucial for mainstream DeFi adoption. Trade-offs: Cairo has a steeper learning curve than Solidity; ecosystem tooling is still maturing compared to EVM chains.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Anchor and Starknet tooling is a strategic decision between a specialized, battle-tested framework and a broader, more experimental ecosystem.
Anchor excels at developer velocity and security for Solana programs by providing a high-level, opinionated framework with built-in account validation, IDL generation, and a robust client SDK. For example, its compile-time security checks and anchor test command have been instrumental for protocols like Jupiter and Drift, reducing common vulnerabilities and accelerating time-to-market. Its tooling is mature, with over $1.5B peak TVL secured by Anchor-built programs, demonstrating proven reliability in production.
Starknet takes a different approach by offering a more modular, low-level toolchain centered on Cairo, its purpose-built language for STARK proofs. This results in a steeper learning curve but provides unparalleled flexibility for complex, computation-heavy logic. The ecosystem, featuring tools like Scarb for package management and Starkli for CLI interactions, is rapidly evolving but less cohesive than Anchor's integrated suite. Its performance is tied to Starknet's ~90 TPS and sub-dollar transaction fees, optimized for scaling Ethereum applications.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment of secure, high-throughput DeFi or NFT applications on Solana, choose Anchor. Its integrated, secure-by-design framework minimizes boilerplate and audit surface. If you prioritize building novel, computation-intensive applications (e.g., on-chain gaming, AI) that require Ethereum's security and scalability via validity proofs, choose Starknet. Be prepared for a more hands-on, foundational development experience with its cutting-edge tooling.
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