Cairo, the native language of Starknet, excels at generating highly efficient zero-knowledge proofs because it was designed from the ground up for zk-STARKs. This results in superior scalability and lower computational overhead for complex logic. For example, Starknet's Cairo-based zkEVM can achieve over 100 TPS on its testnet, with transaction costs often under $0.01, showcasing its potential for high-throughput, low-fee applications like on-chain gaming and DeFi aggregators.
LABS
Comparisons
Cairo vs EVM: zk Execution
A technical comparison of Cairo's native zk-provable language versus EVM-compatible zkEVMs, analyzing trade-offs in performance, security, developer experience, and ecosystem for infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The zk Execution Frontier
A data-driven comparison of Cairo's native zkEVM versus EVM-compatible zkEVMs, framing the core architectural trade-offs for protocol architects.
EVM-compatible zkEVMs like those from Polygon zkEVM, zkSync Era, and Scroll take a different approach by prioritizing developer familiarity and ecosystem portability. This strategy allows for near-seamless migration of existing Solidity smart contracts and tooling (e.g., Hardhat, Foundry). The trade-off is that proving EVM bytecode is inherently less efficient than Cairo, often leading to higher prover costs and longer finality times, though still vastly faster than Layer 1 Ethereum.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum performance and cost-efficiency for novel applications, choose Cairo. If you prioritize rapid deployment, leveraging the vast Ethereum developer base, and existing contract libraries, choose an EVM-compatible zkEVM. The decision hinges on whether you are building a new paradigm or optimizing an existing one.
tldr-summary
Cairo vs EVM: zk Execution
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for zero-knowledge execution environments at a glance.
01
Cairo's Core Strength: Native ZK-Friendliness
Purpose-built for ZK: Cairo's instruction set is designed for efficient proof generation, enabling complex logic (like recursive proofs) with lower proving overhead than transpiled EVM. This matters for high-throughput DeFi (e.g., StarkEx dYdX) and privacy-focused applications requiring complex state transitions.
~100x
Faster Proving (vs. zkEVM)
02
Cairo's Trade-off: Ecosystem Friction
New Toolchain & Language: Developers must learn Cairo and its tooling (Scarb, Starkli), creating a barrier to entry. While Warp allows Solidity→Cairo transpilation, it can introduce inefficiencies. This matters for teams with deep EVM expertise or those prioritizing rapid deployment using existing OpenZeppelin, Hardhat, or Foundry libraries.
03
EVM's Core Strength: Massive Composability
Unmatched Network Effects: Native EVM compatibility (via zkEVMs like Scroll, Polygon zkEVM, zkSync Era) grants instant access to billions in TVL, thousands of audited smart contracts, and tooling like MetaMask. This matters for protocols needing liquidity fast or aiming for fork-and-launch strategies with minimal code changes.
$80B+
EVM DeFi TVL
04
EVM's Trade-off: ZK Performance Tax
Proving Overhead: Executing EVM opcodes in ZK is computationally expensive, leading to higher proving times and costs versus native ZK-VMs. Optimizations (e.g., Polygon zkEVM's zkASM) help but add complexity. This matters for applications requiring ultra-low, predictable fees or frequent micro-transactions where proof cost dominates.
ZK-VM ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Cairo vs EVM for zk Execution
Direct technical comparison of Starknet's Cairo VM and zkEVM implementations for zero-knowledge execution.
| Metric / Feature | Cairo VM (Starknet) | zkEVM (e.g., Polygon zkEVM, zkSync) |
|---|---|---|
Native ZK-Friendliness | ||
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | ||
Proving Time (Single Tx) | < 1 sec | ~5-10 sec |
Gas Cost for ZK Proof | $0.05 - $0.20 | $0.50 - $2.00 |
Programming Language | Cairo | Solidity/Vyper |
State Growth (Storage Cost) | ~0.3 KB/tx | ~3 KB/tx |
Formal Verification Support |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Cairo (Starknet) vs EVM: zk Execution
A technical breakdown of Starknet's Cairo VM versus the Ethereum Virtual Machine for zero-knowledge execution environments. Key strengths and trade-offs for protocol architects.
01
Cairo Pro: Unmatched Scalability & Cost
Proven high throughput: Starknet mainnet processes ~100-200 TPS, with testnets demonstrating over 1,000 TPS. Radically lower fees: Complex swaps cost ~$0.01-$0.10, a 100x reduction vs L1 EVM. This matters for high-frequency DeFi (e.g., dYdX v4) and mass-market gaming.
100-200 TPS
Mainnet Throughput
$0.01-$0.10
Avg. Swap Cost
03
EVM Pro: Massive Ecosystem & Tooling
Dominant developer share: Over 20,000 active monthly devs (Electric Capital) and $60B+ TVL across chains. Mature tool suite: Hardhat, Foundry, Ethers.js, and hundreds of audited libraries (OpenZeppelin). This matters for teams prioritizing speed to market, composability (e.g., with Aave, Uniswap), and hiring ease.
20k+
Monthly Devs
$60B+
Cross-Chain TVL
05
Cairo Con: Nascent Ecosystem
Limited production DeFi: TVL ~$100M vs. billions on leading EVM rollups. Tooling gaps: While improving, dev tools (debuggers, indexers) lag behind EVM's maturity. This matters for projects that require deep liquidity or specialized infrastructure (e.g., advanced oracles) on day one.
06
EVM Con: Inherent ZK Inefficiency
ZK-proving overhead: ZK-EVMs (zkSync, Scroll) add significant proving cost and time due to EVM's complexity, making ultra-low-cost transactions harder. Architectural debt: Features like storage layouts and opcodes weren't designed for ZK, creating friction. This matters for applications demanding the absolute lowest latency and cost per transaction.
pros-cons-b
EXECUTION ENVIRONMENT COMPARISON
zkEVM (e.g., zkSync, Polygon) vs. Cairo (Starknet): zk Execution
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for choosing between EVM-compatible and Cairo-native zk-rollups.
01
zkEVM: Developer Velocity
Immediate ecosystem access: Leverage Solidity, Vyper, and 90%+ of existing Ethereum tooling (Hardhat, Foundry, MetaMask). This matters for protocols migrating from L1 Ethereum or teams prioritizing time-to-market over ultimate performance.
02
zkEVM: Capital & Liquidity Onboarding
Seamless asset bridging: Native compatibility with Ethereum's ~$50B+ DeFi TVL. Protocols like Aave and Uniswap V3 can deploy with minimal fork effort. This matters for applications requiring deep, established liquidity from day one.
03
Cairo: Performance & Cost Ceiling
ZK-native design: Cairo's architecture is built for zero-knowledge proofs from the ground up, enabling more efficient proof generation and lower long-term fee potential. This matters for high-frequency applications (e.g., gaming, order-book DEXs) where micro-transactions are critical.
04
Cairo: Innovation Frontier
No EVM legacy constraints: Enables novel primitives like account abstraction as a protocol-level standard and more expressive smart contracts. This matters for teams building novel financial products or web3 experiences that are impossible on the EVM.
05
zkEVM: Centralization & Maturity Risk
Early-stage sequencer control: Most zkEVMs (zkSync Era, Scroll) currently operate with a single, centralized sequencer. While decentralization is on the roadmap, this presents a short-term trust assumption for high-value applications.
06
Cairo: Ecosystem & Talent Gap
Smaller, specialized pool: The Cairo language and Starknet stack have a steeper learning curve and a smaller developer base (~10k devs vs. Ethereum's millions). This matters for CTOs concerned with hiring and long-term maintenance costs.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Cairo for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for novel, high-throughput, and capital-efficient applications. Strengths: Native account abstraction enables gasless onboarding and session keys, critical for complex DeFi UX. The Cairo VM's deterministic, parallelizable execution is ideal for high-frequency DEXs and order books. Starknet's L2 scaling provides low, predictable fees for composable protocols. Key Protocols: Starknet DeFi (Ekubo, Nostra), zkLend.
EVM for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for immediate liquidity, maximum composability, and established tooling. Strengths: Unmatched TVL and battle-tested contracts (Uniswap, Aave, Compound). The EVM's network effect ensures seamless integration with hundreds of existing protocols and wallets. Mature tooling (Hardhat, Foundry, Ethers.js) accelerates development. Key Protocols: All major L1 & L2 DeFi (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base).
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: The Strategic Choice
Choosing between Cairo and EVM for zk execution is a foundational decision that hinges on your protocol's core priorities: developer velocity versus long-term scalability and cost.
EVM excels at immediate developer adoption and ecosystem leverage because of its massive, battle-tested network of tools and talent. For example, deploying a zk-rollup like zkSync Era or Polygon zkEVM grants access to the entire Ethereum toolchain—Solidity, Foundry, Hardhat—and a TVL exceeding $1.5B across major L2s. This drastically reduces time-to-market and de-risks development by relying on familiar standards like ERC-20 and ERC-721.
Cairo takes a fundamentally different approach by being a native language for provable programs within Starknet's validity rollup architecture. This results in a trade-off: a steeper initial learning curve for a more mathematically optimized stack. The payoff is superior performance potential, with Starknet achieving over 100 TPS in practice and near-zero fee volatility due to its STARK-based proof system, which is more computationally efficient than SNARKs for complex operations.
The key trade-off: If your priority is launching quickly within the dominant DeFi/NFT ecosystem with a large existing team, choose the EVM path via a zkEVM. If you prioritize building a novel, high-throughput application where long-term, predictable low cost and maximal cryptographic efficiency are non-negotiable, invest in Cairo and the Starknet stack. For CTOs, this is the classic build-vs-buy decision applied to your blockchain's core virtual machine.
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