zkSync vs Scroll: ZK Rollups

introduction

THE ANALYSIS

Introduction

zkSync and Scroll represent two dominant, EVM-compatible ZK Rollup architectures, forcing a critical choice between bleeding-edge performance and maximal security decentralization.

zkSync Era excels at developer experience and high-throughput scaling through its custom zkEVM architecture and native account abstraction. Its use of the zkSync Stack and ZK Stack for hyperchains, alongside a custom LLVM-based compiler, prioritizes performance and customizability. For example, it consistently demonstrates higher peak TPS (often exceeding 100+ in bursts) and lower transaction fees during non-congested periods compared to Ethereum L1, making it a top choice for consumer dApps and gaming protocols.

Scroll takes a fundamentally different approach by prioritizing bytecode-level EVM equivalence and a decentralized prover network. Its strategy involves meticulously replicating the Ethereum execution environment, using a zkEVM circuit that closely mirrors the EVM's architecture. This results in a trade-off: slightly higher development friction and proving times for the benefit of unparalleled security assurances and seamless migration for complex, security-sensitive protocols like lending platforms (e.g., Aave, Compound forks).

The key trade-off: If your priority is raw performance, lower costs for users, and a feature-rich SDK for custom chains, choose zkSync Era. If you prioritize maximal security through decentralization, byte-for-byte EVM compatibility for effortless migrations, and alignment with Ethereum's ethos, choose Scroll. Your decision hinges on whether you value cutting-edge scalability or conservative, verifiable correctness.

tldr-summary

zkSync vs Scroll

TL;DR: Key Differentiators

A high-level comparison of the two leading EVM-compatible ZK Rollups, focusing on their core technical and ecosystem differentiators.

zkSync Era: Superior Performance & Ecosystem

Specific advantage: Higher TPS (170+ vs ~10) and significantly lower transaction fees. This matters for high-frequency DeFi applications and projects prioritizing user experience. Backed by Matter Labs with a mature ecosystem including Uniswap, Curve, and PancakeSwap.

170+ TPS

Peak Throughput

$750M+ TVL

Total Value Locked

zkSync Era: Advanced Customization

Specific advantage: Native Account Abstraction (AA) and a custom LLVM-based compiler (zkSync Era VM). This matters for protocols needing custom precompiles or wanting to build novel, gas-efficient smart contracts beyond standard EVM.

Scroll: EVM-Equivalence & Security Focus

Specific advantage: Bytecode-level EVM compatibility, verified by a decentralized prover network. This matters for enterprise migrations and protocols where absolute security and minimal audit surface are critical. Built in collaboration with the Ethereum Foundation.

1:1 EVM

Bytecode Compatibility

Scroll: Decentralized & Community-Driven

Specific advantage: A permissionless, open-source prover network and sequencer decentralization roadmap. This matters for projects valuing credible neutrality and long-term alignment with Ethereum's decentralization ethos over speed of feature deployment.

HEAD-TO-HEAD FEATURE MATRIX

zkSync vs Scroll: ZK Rollup Comparison

Direct comparison of key technical metrics and ecosystem features for two leading ZK Rollup solutions.

Metric	zkSync Era	Scroll
EVM Compatibility	zkEVM (Type 4)	zkEVM (Type 3)
Avg. Transaction Cost	$0.10 - $0.50	$0.05 - $0.20
Time to Finality (L1)	~15 min	~1 hour
Native Account Abstraction
Mainnet Launch	Mar 2023	Oct 2023
Total Value Locked (TVL)	$750M+	$250M+
Programming Language	Rust, Zinc	Rust, Go

pros-cons-a

PROS AND CONS

zkSync Era vs Scroll: ZK Rollups

A data-driven comparison of two leading EVM-compatible ZK Rollups, highlighting their architectural priorities and trade-offs for protocol deployment.

zkSync Era: Developer Velocity

Native Account Abstraction & LLVM Compiler: Offers built-in account abstraction for all accounts and uses a custom LLVM-based compiler (zksolc/zkvyper). This enables faster contract deployment and unique UX patterns, but can introduce subtle differences from standard Solidity. Ideal for teams prioritizing novel user experiences and willing to adopt a slightly custom toolchain.

LLVM

Compiler Backend

zkSync Era: Ecosystem & Funding

Matter Labs-led with major VC backing: Backed by $458M in total funding and a well-funded ecosystem program. This has driven rapid growth in Total Value Locked (TVL) and a large portfolio of deployed dApps like SyncSwap and Maverick Protocol. Choose zkSync for projects seeking deep liquidity and a mature, capital-rich environment.

$458M+

Total Funding

Scroll: EVM Equivalence

Bytecode-Level Compatibility: Scroll's emphasis on EVM equivalence means contracts compile with standard tooling (Solc) and behave identically to Ethereum L1. This minimizes audit surface and migration risk. Critical for protocols with complex, battle-tested logic (e.g., lending markets) where exact bytecode behavior is non-negotiable.

Solc

Native Compiler

Scroll: Decentralization & Security

Community-First Sequencing & Proving: Emphasizes a decentralized prover network and plans for permissionless validation. Its tech stack is built in collaboration with the Ethereum Foundation's Privacy and Scaling Explorations group. This appeals to projects with maximalist security requirements and those prioritizing alignment with Ethereum's core ethos.

PSE

EF Collaboration

zkSync Era: Potential Lock-in

Proprietary Prover & Custom Opcodes: Relies on a closed-source Boojum prover and introduces custom precompiles. This creates a degree of vendor lock-in and increases the complexity of a future migration to another L2 or Ethereum L1. A significant consideration for protocols planning multi-chain strategies.

Boojum

Prover Tech

Scroll: Ecosystem Scale

Younger, Growing Network: While growing steadily with integrations from protocols like Uniswap V3, Scroll's TVL and user base are currently smaller than zkSync's. This may mean lower initial liquidity and discovery for new dApps. A trade-off for teams that value architectural purity over immediate network effects.

Younger

Ecosystem Stage

pros-cons-b

PROS AND CONS

A data-driven comparison of two leading EVM-compatible ZK Rollups, highlighting their architectural priorities and trade-offs for protocol builders.

zkSync Era: Speed & Ecosystem Maturity

Proven performance and adoption: Processes ~30 TPS with sub-second finality. Hosts major DeFi protocols like Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Curve, with a TVL exceeding $800M. Its zkEVM prioritizes developer experience with Solidity/Vyper support and native account abstraction. This matters for teams needing a mature, high-throughput environment with established user and developer tooling.

zkSync Era: Centralization & Cost Trade-offs

Sequencer centralization: Currently relies on a single, Matter Labs-operated sequencer for transaction ordering. While secure, this presents a liveness dependency. Higher proving costs can lead to less predictable fee structures during congestion compared to some competitors. This matters for protocols prioritizing maximum decentralization or requiring ultra-stable, minimal operational costs.

Scroll: EVM Equivalence & Decentralized Vision

Bytecode-level EVM equivalence: Ensures near-perfect compatibility, allowing tools like Hardhat and Foundry to work with minimal modifications. Its roadmap emphasizes a decentralized proof network and permissionless validator set from day one. This matters for developers seeking the least friction for porting existing dApps and for protocols with strong decentralization mandates.

Scroll: Newer Network & Proving Latency

Younger ecosystem: While growing rapidly, its TVL and number of deployed major protocols (e.g., Aave, Compound forks) are currently smaller than zkSync's. The proving process can introduce slightly higher latency for finality compared to optimized alternatives, as it prioritizes verifier decentralization. This matters for applications needing the deepest liquidity pools or the absolute fastest time-to-finality for user experience.

CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY

When to Choose zkSync vs Scroll

zkSync Era for DeFi

Verdict: The established leader for high-value, complex protocols. Strengths: Dominant TVL (>$800M) and deep liquidity across AMMs (SyncSwap, Maverick), lending (Eralend), and derivatives (Holdstation). Its battle-tested zkEVM (v24) and mature tooling (Hardhat plugins, Block Explorer) provide a stable environment. Native account abstraction (AA) enables superior UX for smart accounts. Considerations: Slightly higher L1 data posting costs can translate to marginally higher fees during peak congestion.

Scroll for DeFi

Verdict: The cost-optimized contender for efficiency-first applications. Strengths: Exceptionally low transaction fees due to efficient proof generation and L1 data compression. Its bytecode-compatible EVM equivalence minimizes migration friction for existing Solidity contracts. Strong alignment with Ethereum's security model and a growing ecosystem (SyncSwap, Ambient, Rhinestone). Considerations: Smaller current TVL (~$200M) means shallower liquidity pools and a less proven track record for large-scale protocols.

ZK-ROLLUP COMPARISON

Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Proof Systems

A technical breakdown of zkSync and Scroll, focusing on their underlying architectures, proof systems, and the trade-offs that define their performance, security, and developer experience.

The core difference lies in their approach to EVM compatibility. zkSync Era uses a custom zkEVM (zkSync Virtual Machine) that compiles Solidity/Vyper to its custom bytecode, prioritizing performance and innovation. Scroll builds a bytecode-compatible zkEVM that executes standard EVM opcodes directly, prioritizing maximal compatibility and a seamless porting experience for existing Ethereum tooling like Hardhat and Foundry.

verdict

THE ANALYSIS

Final Verdict and Decision Framework

A data-driven breakdown to guide infrastructure decisions between the two leading ZK Rollup contenders.

zkSync Era excels at developer adoption and ecosystem maturity because of its first-mover advantage and EVM-compatible Solidity support via its zkEVM. For example, it consistently leads in Total Value Locked (TVL), often exceeding $800M, and hosts major DeFi protocols like Uniswap, Maverick, and SyncSwap. Its proprietary zkEVM circuit design and Boojum prover are optimized for high-throughput, low-cost general-purpose smart contracts, making it the incumbent for mainstream dApp deployment.

Scroll takes a different approach by prioritizing bytecode-level EVM equivalence and open-source collaboration. This strategy results in superior compatibility for complex smart contracts and developer tools but involves trade-offs in initial optimization and time-to-market. Its prover, built in collaboration with the Ethereum Foundation, and a decentralized sequencer/validator set align closely with Ethereum's ethos, appealing to teams valuing maximal security and alignment over raw speed of feature rollout.

The key architectural trade-off centers on optimization versus equivalence. zkSync's custom circuit design (e.g., for storage writes) allows for aggressive fee reduction and performance gains. Scroll's commitment to a direct translation of EVM opcodes ensures fewer unexpected behavior differences but can result in marginally higher proving costs. This is evident in gas fee benchmarks, where zkSync often has lower average transaction costs for common operations.

Consider zkSync Era if your priority is launching a production dApp today that requires a robust, high-liquidity environment, lower transaction fees for users, and a wide array of existing developer tools and infrastructure like The Graph or Pyth. Its mature ecosystem reduces integration risk.

Choose Scroll if you prioritize long-term security guarantees, maximal EVM equivalence to minimize migration headaches for complex contracts, and a philosophy aligned with Ethereum's decentralized roadmap. It is the prudent choice for protocols where absolute certainty in contract behavior and censorship resistance are paramount.