Rust vs Move: Non-EVM Contracts

Rust excels at building high-performance, secure, and general-purpose blockchain infrastructure because of its zero-cost abstractions and strict compile-time ownership model. For example, the Solana blockchain, built with Rust, achieves over 2,000 TPS for simple transfers, leveraging the language's speed and control for its unique parallel execution model. This makes Rust the go-to choice for building novel L1s, L2s, and core protocol components like validators and indexers.

Move takes a different approach by being a domain-specific language designed exclusively for secure digital asset management. Its core innovations—like first-class resources that cannot be copied or implicitly discarded and formal verification built into the toolchain—result in a trade-off: less general-purpose flexibility but arguably stronger guarantees for financial applications. This is evidenced by its adoption in asset-centric ecosystems like Aptos and Sui, which prioritize safe, verifiable transactions.

The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing performance and flexibility to build novel blockchain architecture or complex DeFi primitives, choose Rust. If you prioritize bulletproof security and correctness for tokenized assets and resource-based economies, choose Move. Your choice fundamentally shapes your stack's capabilities, from the virtual machine (e.g., SVM vs. MoveVM) to the available developer tooling and audit frameworks.

Rust excels at performance and ecosystem maturity because it compiles to native WebAssembly (WASM) and has a vast, general-purpose library ecosystem. For example, chains like Solana (50k+ TPS theoretical) and Polkadot's parachains leverage Rust's speed and safety for high-throughput DeFi and NFT applications. Its ownership model eliminates entire classes of bugs, making it ideal for complex financial logic where security is paramount, as seen in protocols like Acala and Anchor.

Move takes a different approach by being a domain-specific language (DSL) designed from the ground up for digital assets. This results in a trade-off: less general-purpose flexibility but unparalleled security for asset manipulation. Move's linear type system and first-class resources ensure assets cannot be duplicated or accidentally destroyed, a principle core to Sui's parallel execution and Aptos's high reliability. Its formal verification tools are more native and accessible than Rust's for blockchain-specific concerns.

The key architectural divergence: Rust offers a general-purpose powerhouse with a steeper learning curve but limitless flexibility, while Move provides a specialized, asset-safe environment that enforces correct-by-construction design for tokenomics and DeFi.

Consider Rust if your priority is: leveraging a massive existing developer pool, integrating with non-blockchain libraries, or building a highly customized virtual machine or complex application logic where ultimate performance is critical. The ecosystem tools (Cargo, crates.io, Solana's Anchor Framework) provide a mature development experience.

Choose Move when your priority is: absolute security and correctness for digital asset handling, especially for novel token standards or DeFi primitives where asset semantics are the core innovation. The built-in guarantees of the Move VM and the focus of chains like Sui and Aptos (both 100k+ TPS theoretical) on parallelizable transactions make it superior for scalable asset-centric applications.

Final Decision Framework: Map your project's core. Is it a generalized dApp platform needing maximum flexibility? Rust's WASM path is proven. Is it a next-generation financial system where asset integrity is non-negotiable? Move's resource-oriented paradigm is the decisive advantage. Benchmark against the leading chains in each ecosystem for final validation.