Hardhat excels at providing a comprehensive, developer-friendly environment for Ethereum projects. Its plugin ecosystem, including tools like hardhat-deploy and @nomiclabs/hardhat-ethers, integrates seamlessly with existing JavaScript/TypeScript workflows. This results in a robust testing suite where complex, stateful integration tests can be written with familiar tools like Mocha and Chai. However, this flexibility comes with a performance cost, as tests run on the Hardhat Network, a JavaScript-based EVM implementation.
LABS
Comparisons
Hardhat vs Foundry: Testing Speed
An objective analysis comparing the testing performance, architecture, and trade-offs between Hardhat and Foundry for EVM smart contract development. This guide helps technical leaders choose the right tool based on project requirements.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Need for Speed in Smart Contract Testing
A data-driven comparison of Hardhat and Foundry, focusing on how their architectural choices impact development velocity and test execution speed.
Foundry takes a fundamentally different approach by being written in Rust and using native EVM execution via revm. This architecture allows for blazing-fast test execution, with benchmarks showing speedups of 10x to 100x compared to JavaScript-based alternatives for unit tests. Its built-in fuzzing with forge fuzz and direct Solidity testing via forge test eliminate context-switching. The trade-off is a steeper initial learning curve and a less extensive native plugin system compared to Hardhat's mature ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is raw execution speed, gas optimization analysis, and advanced fuzzing for protocol-core logic, choose Foundry. Its performance is unmatched for rapid iteration. If you prioritize a batteries-included environment, deep integration with front-end tooling, and a gentler onboarding for web2 developers, choose Hardhat. Its ecosystem maturity and flexibility often outweigh pure speed for full-stack dApp development.
tldr-summary
Hardhat vs Foundry: Testing Speed
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of performance, developer experience, and ecosystem trade-offs for smart contract testing.
01
Foundry: Blazing Fast Execution
Native Rust-based EVM (revm): Compiles and runs tests in a single process, eliminating Node.js overhead. Benchmarks show 10-100x faster test runs on large suites. This matters for teams running CI/CD pipelines where minutes saved per build compound.
10-100x
Faster Tests
02
Hardhat: Rich JavaScript Ecosystem
Seamless TypeScript/JavaScript integration: Leverages the entire npm ecosystem for testing utilities (Waffle, Chai). This matters for teams with existing frontend expertise or those building full-stack dApps where consistent tooling is critical.
4,000+
Plugins & Tools
03
Foundry: Fuzzing & Invariant Testing
Built-in, first-class fuzzing: Write property-based tests with forge test --fuzz-runs. Enables invariant testing to uncover edge cases traditional unit tests miss. This matters for protocols securing >$100M TVL where security is paramount.
100%
Native Support
04
Hardhat: Mature Debugging & Tracing
Superior stack traces and console.log: Hardhat Network provides detailed error messages and the console.sol library for debugging. This matters for rapid prototyping and onboarding new developers, reducing time-to-debug significantly.
< 1 sec
Trace Generation
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Hardhat vs Foundry
Direct comparison of testing, development, and ecosystem features.
| Metric | Hardhat | Foundry |
|---|---|---|
Test Execution Speed (10k lines) | ~120 seconds | ~12 seconds |
Native Solidity Testing | ||
Built-in Mainnet Forking | ||
Primary Language | JavaScript/TypeScript | Solidity/Rust |
Gas Report Generation | ||
Console Logging in Solidity | ||
Plugin Ecosystem | Extensive (NPM) | Minimal (Forge Std) |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Hardhat vs Foundry: Testing Speed
A data-driven breakdown of execution speed, developer experience, and ecosystem trade-offs for smart contract testing.
01
Foundry's Raw Speed
Native Rust execution: Forge tests run directly in Rust, bypassing the JavaScript/Node.js layer. This results in 10-100x faster test execution for complex suites. This matters for high-frequency development cycles and large protocol upgrades where iteration speed is critical.
10-100x
Faster Execution
03
Foundry's Fuzzing & Differential Testing
Built-in, high-performance fuzzing: Forge's fuzzer can run thousands of property-based tests per second using invariant testing and differential fuzzing (e.g., against a reference implementation). This matters for security-critical protocols like DeFi lending (Aave, Compound) that require exhaustive edge-case validation.
1000+
Tests/Sec
pros-cons-b
Hardhat vs Foundry: Testing Speed
Foundry: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for development teams prioritizing rapid iteration and reliable test suites.
01
Foundry's Speed Advantage
Native Rust execution: Tests run directly in Rust, bypassing the JavaScript/Node.js layer. This results in 10-100x faster test execution for complex suites. This matters for high-frequency development cycles where waiting minutes for tests to complete disrupts flow.
10-100x
Faster Tests
03
Hardhat's Ecosystem Integration
Deep plugin ecosystem (e.g., @nomicfoundation/hardhat-toolbox, hardhat-deploy) and first-class TypeScript support. This matters for teams building full-stack dApps that rely on tight integration with frontend frameworks and existing Node.js tooling.
200+
Community Plugins
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Hardhat vs Foundry
Foundry for Speed
Verdict: The definitive choice for raw execution speed. Strengths:
- Native Solidity Testing: Tests are written in Solidity, eliminating the JavaScript/TypeScript bridge. This results in 10-100x faster test execution for complex suites.
- Fuzz Testing Built-in:
forgeincludes property-based fuzzing (viaforge test --fuzz-runs) out-of-the-box, enabling rapid discovery of edge cases without additional setup. - Gas Snapshotting: Quickly benchmark gas costs with
forge snapshotto optimize during development.
Hardhat for Speed
Verdict: Slower but offers superior tooling for iterative debugging. Strengths:
- Best-in-Class Debugging: The Hardhat Network provides stack traces,
console.log, and detailed transaction traces, drastically reducing time spent diagnosing failures. - Incremental Compilation: Caches compilation artifacts, speeding up re-runs after small changes in larger projects.
- Plugin Ecosystem: Plugins like
hardhat-gas-reporterautomate performance analysis, saving manual effort.
Data Point: A test suite with 500 assertions may run in 2 seconds with Foundry vs. 45 seconds with Hardhat.
HARDHAT VS FOUNDRY
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Performance
A data-driven comparison of the core architectures, execution models, and performance characteristics of Hardhat and Foundry for smart contract development.
Yes, Foundry is significantly faster for test execution. Foundry's native Rust-based EVM, forge, compiles and runs tests directly, avoiding the overhead of a Node.js runtime. This results in test suites running 10x-100x faster. Hardhat, running on Node.js, incurs the startup and execution cost of a JavaScript environment, making it slower for large test suites, though its incremental compilation helps with development speed.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between Hardhat and Foundry for testing hinges on your team's priorities: developer experience and ecosystem integration versus raw execution speed and gas optimization.
Hardhat excels at providing a comprehensive, developer-friendly environment because it is built on Node.js and integrates seamlessly with the existing JavaScript/TypeScript ecosystem. For example, its plugin architecture allows for easy integration with tools like Ethers.js, Waffle, and coverage reporters, and its built-in Hardhat Network offers advanced debugging features like stack traces and console.log. This makes it the superior choice for teams prioritizing a smooth onboarding experience, complex fixture management, and deep integration with front-end tooling.
Foundry takes a radically different approach by being written in Rust and using Solidity for its test scripts. This results in a significant performance advantage, with benchmarks showing test suites running 10-100x faster than Hardhat's, and native, first-class support for fuzzing and invariant testing via forge. The trade-off is a steeper initial learning curve, as developers must write tests in Solidity and manage dependencies differently, which can be a barrier for teams less familiar with the language or accustomed to JavaScript-based workflows.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer velocity, ecosystem tooling, and a gentle learning curve for Web2 engineers, choose Hardhat. Its mature plugin system and familiar environment reduce friction. If you prioritize blazing-fast test execution, advanced fuzzing capabilities, and deep gas optimization analysis, choose Foundry. Its performance and native Solidity testing provide a distinct advantage for protocol teams where speed and security are paramount.
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