Foundry excels at raw performance and developer control because it is a native Rust toolchain built for EVM chains like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon. For example, its forge test suite executes tests in parallel, often 10-100x faster than JavaScript-based alternatives, directly impacting iteration speed and CI pipeline run times. This speed, combined with built-in fuzzing via forge fuzz and gas snapshotting, makes it the tool of choice for teams prioritizing exhaustive security checks and rapid feedback loops on high-throughput networks.
LABS
Comparisons
Foundry vs Anchor: CI Workflows
A technical comparison of Foundry's Forge and Anchor's framework for continuous integration and deployment in EVM and Solana ecosystems, focusing on automation, security, and developer velocity.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The CI/CD Divide in Smart Contract Development
Foundry and Anchor represent fundamentally different philosophies for building and automating smart contract pipelines, forcing a strategic choice between ecosystem integration and raw performance.
Anchor takes a different approach by providing a full-stack, opinionated framework for Solana development. This results in a trade-off: you gain incredible developer velocity and integrated security through its IDL (Interface Description Language) and client code generation, but you are locked into the Solana ecosystem. Anchor's CLI and pre-configured test environment abstract away much of Solana's complexity, enabling faster onboarding and consistent project structures, which streamlines CI setup for protocol-specific workflows.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing performance, security tooling, and multi-chain EVM flexibility, choose Foundry. If you prioritize rapid Solana-specific development, strong conventions, and integrated client generation, choose Anchor. Your chain selection is the primary decision driver; a multi-chain EVM strategy leans heavily towards Foundry, while a Solana-native build mandates Anchor.
tldr-summary
Foundry vs Anchor: CI Workflows
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for integrating these frameworks into your continuous integration pipeline.
01
Foundry: Native Speed & Flexibility
Native Rust performance: Forge test suites execute significantly faster than Solana's native test validator, slashing CI run times. This matters for high-frequency development cycles where fast feedback is critical.
- Full EVM environment: Simulate mainnet forks and complex MEV scenarios with Anvil.
- Scripting power: Use Solidity/
forgescripts for deployment logic, not external tooling.
02
Foundry: Ecosystem Tooling Depth
Mature, battle-tested toolchain: Integrates seamlessly with Hardhat, Tenderly, and OpenZeppelin Defender for a complete DevOps pipeline. This matters for enterprise teams requiring audit trails, gas reports, and multi-chain deployments.
- Forge snapshot testing: Pinpoint gas regressions with
forge snapshot --diff. - Broad plugin support: Leverage tools like Scribe for invariant testing.
03
Anchor: Solana-Native Integration
First-class Solana tooling: anchor test spins up a local validator, runs tests, and shuts down cleanly, providing the most accurate environment for Solana program development. This matters for teams whose primary target is Solana Mainnet.
- IDL-driven workflow: Automatic client generation ensures type safety between program and frontend.
- Built-in migration paths:
anchor deployhandles program upgrades and authority management.
04
Anchor: Batteries-Included Simplicity
Reduced configuration overhead: A single Anchor.toml file manages network configs, program IDs, and provider settings. This matters for smaller teams or rapid prototyping where minimizing DevOps complexity is a priority.
- Integrated wallet management: Seamless integration with Solana CLI and Phantom for localnet testing.
- Standardized project layout: Enforces conventions that streamline CI script writing across teams.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Foundry vs Anchor CI Workflows
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for blockchain development CI/CD.
| Metric / Feature | Foundry (Forge) | Anchor Framework |
|---|---|---|
Native Language | Solidity/Vyper | Rust |
Primary Chain Target | EVM (Ethereum, Arbitrum, etc.) | Solana |
Built-in CI Scripts | ||
Test Speed (Local) | < 2 sec for 50 tests | ~5 sec for 50 tests |
Gas Snapshot & Reporting | ||
Fuzz Testing Integration | ||
Dependency Management | Git submodules, Foundry.toml | Cargo.toml |
pros-cons-a
FOUNDRY VS ANCHOR
Foundry (Forge) CI: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for Continuous Integration workflows in Solana development.
01
Foundry (Forge) CI: Key Strength
Native Solidity & EVM Tooling: Forge is built for the EVM ecosystem. This matters for teams with existing Ethereum, Polygon, or Arbitrum experience, as they can reuse their Hardhat/Ganache knowledge and scripts. CI pipelines can leverage foundry.toml for deterministic builds and forge test for fast, Rust-based execution.
02
Foundry (Forge) CI: Key Strength
Speed & Determinism: Forge's test runner is written in Rust, offering sub-second test execution for complex contracts. This matters for high-frequency CI/CD pipelines where feedback loops must be fast. Its deterministic build system ensures the same bytecode is produced across all CI runners, eliminating "it works on my machine" issues.
03
Anchor Framework CI: Key Strength
Solana-Native Abstraction: Anchor provides a full-stack framework with IDL generation, type-safe clients, and built-in security checks. This matters for teams building exclusively on Solana, as CI can validate account constraints, instruction data, and program-derived addresses (PDAs) automatically, catching architectural flaws early.
04
Anchor Framework CI: Key Strength
Integrated Testing Environment: Anchor's anchor test command spins up a local Solana test validator, deploys your program, and runs TypeScript/JavaScript tests against it. This matters for end-to-end integration testing, allowing you to simulate on-chain interactions with wallets and other programs in your CI workflow.
05
Foundry (Forge) CI: Consideration
Solana Ecosystem Mismatch: Forge is an EVM tool first. While it supports Solana via svm and solang, you miss out on native Solana concepts like PDAs, CPI, and the account model. This matters if your CI needs to test cross-program invocations or validate complex account relationships specific to Solana.
06
Anchor Framework CI: Consideration
Framework Lock-in & Complexity: Anchor imposes its own macro-based DSL and project structure. This matters for teams wanting minimal abstraction or planning to migrate to native @solana/web3.js. CI scripts become tightly coupled to Anchor's CLI, and debugging can require understanding generated boilerplate.
pros-cons-b
Foundry vs Anchor
Anchor Framework CI: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for CI/CD workflows in Solana development.
01
Foundry's CI Strength: Speed & Determinism
Native Solidity simulation: Tests run in a local EVM environment, enabling sub-second unit tests. This matters for high-frequency iteration and catching bugs before deployment to devnet. Integrates with GitHub Actions via forge test for deterministic results.
02
Foundry's CI Weakness: Solana Context
No native Solana program testing: Requires a separate, complex setup (e.g., spawning a local validator, using solana-test-validator) to test on-chain interactions. This matters for protocols with heavy CPI calls or complex state interactions, increasing CI pipeline complexity.
03
Anchor's CI Strength: Integrated Solana Environment
Built-in test framework: anchor test spins up a local validator, deploys programs, and runs TypeScript/JavaScript tests against a real cluster. This matters for end-to-end integration testing, ensuring your program logic works within the full Solana runtime.
04
Anchor's CI Weakness: Slower Test Cycles
Validator boot time overhead: Each test run requires starting a local validator, adding 5-15 seconds of latency. This matters for large test suites or TDD workflows, where rapid feedback is critical. Can be mitigated with persistent test environments but adds setup complexity.
05
Choose Foundry CI For...
Pure logic unit testing of Solidity for Solana EVM (Neon, Eclipse) or Solang programs. Best for teams prioritizing blazing-fast feedback loops on core contract logic before integration.
06
Choose Anchor CI For...
Full-stack Solana program testing. Essential for protocols using Anchor's IDL, CPI, or complex account constraints. The integrated environment mirrors mainnet behavior for reliable pre-deployment checks.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Foundry vs Anchor: A Scenario-Based Guide
Foundry for Speed & Control
Verdict: The definitive choice for teams prioritizing raw development velocity and low-level control. Strengths:
- Blazing Fast Tests: Native Rust-based
forge testexecutes Solidity tests 10-100x faster than JavaScript-based frameworks, enabling rapid iteration. - In-line Fuzzing: Built-in invariant testing (
forge invariant) and differential fuzzing catch edge cases during development, not in production. - Direct EVM Control:
forgeandcastprovide granular control over the EVM environment, gas profiling, and transaction simulation, crucial for DeFi optimizations. Best For: High-frequency protocol upgrades, complex DeFi strategies requiring gas optimization, and teams with deep EVM expertise.
Anchor for Speed & Control
Verdict: Excellent for Solana speed, but abstracts away low-level control for developer convenience. Strengths:
- Rapid Prototyping: The
anchor initandanchor buildworkflow generates secure program skeletons and IDL instantly, accelerating initial development. - Integrated Client Gen: Automatically generates TypeScript clients from your IDL, speeding up frontend integration.
Trade-off: You trade granular control over Solana's runtime (e.g., compute unit budgeting, CPI details) for this speed. Foundry-equivalent control on Solana requires raw
solana-programdevelopment.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
A decisive breakdown of the CI workflow trade-offs between Foundry and Anchor to guide your infrastructure choice.
Foundry excels at speed and deterministic testing for EVM-native development because its entire stack is written in Rust and designed for local execution. For example, its forge test command runs thousands of smart contract tests in seconds, leveraging a built-in EVM that eliminates RPC latency. This native integration enables rapid iteration cycles and is a primary reason why protocols like Optimism and Base use Foundry for core contract development. Its CI workflows are scriptable and lightweight, requiring only a foundry.toml file and standard GitHub Actions runners.
Anchor takes a different approach by providing a full-stack, opinionated framework for Solana. This results in a trade-off: you gain immense productivity for on-chain programs through its IDL (Interface Description Language) and client code generation, but you are tightly coupled to the Solana toolchain. Its CI strategy is inherently more complex, requiring a Solana-test-validator instance, which can increase pipeline setup time and resource consumption compared to Foundry's purely local EVM. However, this integration ensures your tests run against a faithful simulation of the Solana runtime.
The key trade-off: If your priority is raw speed, deterministic testing, and EVM ecosystem flexibility, choose Foundry. Its lean, composable tools are ideal for teams building complex DeFi protocols or cross-chain infrastructure where fast feedback loops are critical. If you prioritize developer productivity, client synchronization, and a batteries-included experience for Solana, choose Anchor. Its integrated workflow from IDL to client drastically reduces boilerplate and is the de facto standard for the Solana ecosystem, making it the pragmatic choice for dedicated Solana applications.
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