Solidity Audits excel at identifying vulnerabilities within a mature, battle-tested ecosystem because of its extensive tooling and historical data. For example, auditors leverage frameworks like Slither and MythX, and reference a vast corpus of past exploits (e.g., reentrancy in The DAO, integer overflows) to pattern-match risks. The sheer scale of the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ecosystem, with over $50B in Total Value Locked (TVL), provides a rich dataset for probabilistic risk assessment, making audits highly effective at catching known attack vectors.
LABS
Comparisons
Solidity Audits vs Move Audits
A technical comparison of audit processes, costs, and security outcomes for EVM-based Solidity and Move-based smart contracts, designed for CTOs and protocol architects making infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Security Paradigm Shift
A data-driven comparison of Solidity and Move smart contract audits, framing the core architectural trade-offs.
Move Audits take a fundamentally different approach by leveraging the language's inherent security guarantees—like linear types and explicit resource semantics—to prevent entire classes of bugs at compile time. This results in a trade-off: auditors spend less time hunting for classic vulnerabilities (e.g., reentrancy is impossible in core Move) but must deeply validate custom business logic and the correct use of Move's novel paradigms, such as capabilities in Aptos or objects in Sui. The audit scope shifts from generic exploits to protocol-specific invariants.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deploying a complex DeFi protocol on an EVM chain (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Polygon) with a vast pool of experienced auditors and established patterns, choose a Solidity audit. If you prioritize building a novel asset-centric application (NFTs, gaming, DeFi with custom assets) on a Move-based chain (Aptos, Sui) and want foundational safety from language design, choose a Move audit. The former mitigates historical risks; the latter architecturally prevents them.
tldr-summary
SOLIDITY AUDITS VS MOVE AUDITS
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of audit priorities, tooling, and risk profiles for the two dominant smart contract paradigms.
01
Choose Solidity Audits For
Mature Ecosystem & Tooling: Access to battle-tested tools like Slither, MythX, and 100+ specialized audit firms. This matters for teams prioritizing time-to-market and a vast pool of experienced auditors.
Established Risk Patterns: Auditors focus on a well-known set of vulnerabilities (reentrancy, integer overflow). This enables efficient, checklist-driven reviews for standard DeFi protocols like Uniswap or Aave forks.
02
Choose Move Audits For
Resource-Oriented Security: The core audit focus shifts to resource correctness—preventing double-spends and invalid state transitions intrinsic to the Move VM. This is critical for digital asset protocols (e.g., Aptos, Sui) where asset scarcity is paramount.
Formal Verification Leverage: The Move Prover allows auditors to write mathematical specifications. This matters for projects requiring highest-assurance correctness for core financial logic, reducing reliance on manual review alone.
03
Solidity Audit Challenge
Composability Risks: Audits must model complex, unpredictable interactions between dozens of external contracts (ERC-20s, oracles, routers). This creates a larger, dynamic attack surface compared to more encapsulated Move modules.
Gas Optimization Depth: Significant audit time is spent on gas efficiency and edge-case costing, a critical cost driver for EVM chains like Ethereum and Arbitrum.
04
Move Audit Challenge
Novelty & Talent Scarcity: Fewer than 10 firms have deep Move audit experience versus 100+ for Solidity. This matters for budget and scheduling, as expert auditors are a constrained resource.
Emerging Pattern Recognition: New vulnerability classes (e.g., key-offset collisions, type confusion in generics) are still being catalogued. Audits require more fundamental language and VM expertise versus pattern matching.
SECURITY MODEL & AUDIT FOCUS
Feature Comparison: Solidity Audits vs Move Audits
Direct comparison of key security paradigms, tooling, and audit considerations for smart contract languages.
| Metric / Feature | Solidity (EVM) | Move (Aptos/Sui) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Security Model | Explicit Access Control | Resource-Oriented & Linear Types |
Reentrancy Risk | High (requires manual guards) | None (architecturally prevented) |
Formal Verification Tooling | Limited (e.g., Certora, Scribble) | Native (Move Prover) |
Common Audit Findings | Reentrancy, Integer Overflow, Access Control | Resource Double-Spend, Abort Safety, Generics |
Standard Audit Scope (Lines of Code) | 500 - 5,000 LOC | 300 - 2,000 LOC |
Native Asset Standard | ERC-20 / ERC-721 | Coin / Object (Fungible/Non-Fungible) |
Typical Audit Cost Range | $15,000 - $100,000+ | $20,000 - $75,000+ |
pros-cons-a
SOLIDITY VS. MOVE
Solidity Audit: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for smart contract security audits on the two dominant execution environments.
01
Solidity: Mature Tooling & Ecosystem
Established security landscape: Auditors have years of battle-tested experience with EVM-specific vulnerabilities (e.g., reentrancy, integer overflows). Tools like Slither, MythX, and Foundry's Fuzzing are industry standards. This matters for protocols prioritizing battle-hardened security reviews and needing access to a deep bench of specialized firms like Trail of Bits or OpenZeppelin.
100+
Audit Firms
5+ Years
Mature Tooling
02
Solidity: Higher Risk Surface
Inherent language complexity: Features like delegatecall, intricate inheritance, and explicit gas management introduce subtle bugs. The $2B+ in historical exploits (e.g., The DAO, Parity Wallet) originated in Solidity/EVM, creating a well-known but persistent attack surface. This matters for high-value DeFi protocols where a single vulnerability can lead to catastrophic loss, demanding exceptionally rigorous and expensive audit cycles.
03
Move: Built-in Security Primitives
Resource-oriented programming: Assets are native types that cannot be copied or implicitly discarded, eliminating entire vulnerability classes like double-spending. The bytecode verifier enforces strict invariants at the VM level. This matters for financial assets and NFTs where guaranteeing scarcity and correctness is paramount, reducing the audit burden for fundamental properties.
0
Reentrancy Bugs
04
Move: Nascent Auditor Expertise
Limited specialist availability: The ecosystem has far fewer auditors with deep Move/Aptos/Sui experience compared to Solidity. Tooling like the Move Prover, while powerful, requires mathematical rigor and is less accessible. This matters for teams on aggressive timelines who may face longer wait times or higher costs to secure a top-tier audit from a handful of qualified firms.
pros-cons-b
SOLIDITY VS MOVE
Move Audit: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for blockchain security audits at a glance.
01
Solidity: Mature Tooling & Ecosystem
Established audit firms: Access to 50+ specialized firms like Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, and Quantstamp with proven methodologies. Extensive battle testing: Over $50B+ in DeFi TVL secured across thousands of live contracts on Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon. This matters for teams requiring a deep bench of experienced auditors and a vast library of known vulnerability patterns.
02
Solidity: Known Attack Surface
Well-documented vulnerabilities: Reentrancy, integer overflows, and delegatecall injections are thoroughly cataloged in resources like SWC Registry. Standardized mitigations: Libraries like OpenZeppelin Contracts provide vetted, upgradeable implementations for common patterns (ERC-20, ERC-721). This matters for protocols that prioritize defense against a predictable, albeit dangerous, set of exploits.
03
Move: Inherent Safety by Design
Built-in resource protection: The key and store abilities prevent accidental duplication or deletion of assets, eliminating entire vulnerability classes. Formal verification ready: Linear logic and explicit resource accounting make Move bytecode inherently more suitable for tools like the Move Prover. This matters for financial primitives where asset integrity is non-negotiable, as seen in Sui's and Aptos's core frameworks.
04
Move: Module & Data Privacy
Explicit visibility control: Functions and structs require explicit public or friend declarations, reducing unintended exposure. Global storage isolation: A module's resources are stored under its address, preventing the unstructured storage collisions common in Solidity. This matters for projects building complex, multi-module applications where strict access control is a primary security requirement.
05
Solidity Con: Unchecked Flexibility
Permissive defaults: Variables are public, functions are virtual, and storage is a shared namespace, leading to frequent configuration errors. Complex inheritance: Deep inheritance chains and delegatecall proxies create opaque execution paths that are difficult to trace and audit. This matters for teams with less experienced developers, as the language places the burden of safety on the developer.
06
Move Con: Nascent Specialist Pool
Limited auditor expertise: Fewer than 10 firms (e.g., OtterSec, Zellic) have deep, production-scale Move audit experience compared to the Solidity market. Evolving best practices: Standards for upgradeability (e.g., Aptos' aptos_std::smart_table) and cross-module security are still being established. This matters for projects on an aggressive timeline who may face higher costs and longer wait times for top-tier review.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Solidity for DeFi
Verdict: The Incumbent Standard. Strengths: Unmatched ecosystem of battle-tested contracts (Uniswap V3, Aave, Compound), extensive audit history, and the largest TVL ($50B+). The EVM's composability allows for seamless integration with oracles (Chainlink), keepers (Gelato), and countless DeFi primitives. Tooling (Foundry, Hardhat) is mature and developer-rich. Weaknesses: Susceptible to reentrancy, overflow, and delegatecall vulnerabilities. Requires rigorous, line-by-line manual review.
Move for DeFi
Verdict: The Secure Challenger.
Strengths: Built-in asset safety via the key struct and linear types prevents reentrancy and accidental loss. Formal verification is more straightforward (Move Prover). Aptos and Sui's parallel execution offer high throughput for order-book DEXs.
Weaknesses: Younger ecosystem. Fewer audited, production-grade DeFi blueprints. Cross-chain composability with the EVM is limited.
SOLIDITY VS MOVE
Technical Deep Dive: Audit Scope and Vulnerabilities
Choosing a smart contract language dictates your primary security risks. This analysis compares the audit landscape for Solidity (Ethereum, L2s) and Move (Aptos, Sui), focusing on inherent vulnerabilities, tooling maturity, and critical review areas for CTOs.
Solidity has a significantly larger and more mature database of known vulnerabilities. This is due to its longer history and massive adoption across Ethereum, L2s, and EVM chains. Common Solidity pitfalls include reentrancy, integer overflows/underflows, and delegatecall injection. Move, being newer and more restrictive by design, has a smaller public vulnerability corpus, but novel risks like resource double-spending in custom types are emerging. Auditors must reference established lists like SWC Registry for Solidity while pioneering checks for Move's unique paradigms.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Strategic Security Investment
Choosing between Solidity and Move audits is a foundational decision that dictates your security posture and long-term maintenance burden.
Solidity Audits excel at leveraging a mature, battle-tested ecosystem because of Ethereum's first-mover advantage and vast developer adoption. For example, the sheer volume of audited code—with firms like OpenZeppelin and Trail of Bits having reviewed billions in TVL—means auditors have encountered and cataloged a vast array of vulnerability patterns, from reentrancy to delegatecall proxy pitfalls. This deep institutional knowledge translates to comprehensive checklists and sophisticated static analysis tools like Slither and MythX, offering a high-confidence review for established DeFi primitives like Uniswap or Aave.
Move Audits take a fundamentally different approach by enforcing security at the language and virtual machine level. This results in a trade-off: you sacrifice some of Solidity's flexibility for built-in protections against entire classes of bugs. Move's resource-oriented model with copy, drop, and key abilities eliminates double-spending and accidental loss of assets by design, while its bytecode verifier ensures strict adherence to type and resource safety. This shifts the auditor's focus from basic arithmetic overflows to more subtle logic errors and protocol-specific economic attacks, as seen in auditing Sui and Aptos-based DeFi protocols.
The key trade-off: If your priority is auditing a complex, novel financial protocol on EVM/L2s with the deepest pool of expert reviewers and tooling, choose a Solidity audit. If you prioritize building on a safer-by-design foundation (like Aptos or Sui) where core asset safety is guaranteed, allowing auditors to focus exclusively on business logic, choose a Move audit. Your choice ultimately locks in your dependency on either the expansive but risk-mitigated EVM ecosystem or the newer, architecturally constrained but inherently safer Move ecosystem.
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