Arbitrum's EVM excels at developer familiarity and security by offering bytecode-level compatibility with Ethereum. This results in a massive, battle-tested ecosystem where tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask work out-of-the-box, and over $18B in TVL is secured by its fraud-proof system. For projects prioritizing a safe, rapid migration or needing access to the deepest liquidity pools, the EVM environment is the proven path.
LABS
Comparisons
Stylus vs EVM: Arbitrum Execution
A technical analysis comparing Arbitrum's native EVM with its new Stylus environment. We break down performance benchmarks, gas costs, developer trade-offs, and strategic implications for protocol architects and engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Arbitrum Execution Fork in the Road
Arbitrum's dual execution environments, EVM and Stylus, present a fundamental architectural choice for developers.
Arbitrum Stylus takes a different approach by introducing WebAssembly (WASM) as a first-class citizen alongside the EVM. This allows developers to write smart contracts in Rust, C, and C++, unlocking 10-100x faster execution and lower compute fees for CPU-intensive operations like zk-proof verification or complex game logic. The trade-off is adopting newer tooling and a less mature, though rapidly growing, ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security, ecosystem size, and developer speed, choose the EVM. If you prioritize raw performance, cost efficiency for heavy computation, and language flexibility, choose Stylus. The beauty of Arbitrum's design is that both environments share the same Layer 1 security and can interoperate, allowing protocols to strategically deploy components where they fit best.
tldr-summary
Stylus vs EVM on Arbitrum
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of Arbitrum's execution environments. Stylus offers a Rust/WASM-based future, while EVM provides the established, battle-tested standard.
01
Stylus: Performance & Cost
10x faster compute & 90% cheaper gas: Executes Rust/C/C++ smart contracts at near-native speed via WebAssembly. This matters for high-frequency DeFi, on-chain gaming, and complex simulations where gas costs and execution speed are critical bottlenecks.
10x
Faster Compute
90%
Cheaper Gas
03
EVM: Ecosystem & Tooling
Unmatched compatibility and liquidity: Full bytecode compatibility with Ethereum means instant access to $20B+ TVL, MetaMask, Hardhat, Foundry, and thousands of deployed dApps. This matters for protocols prioritizing security audits, composability, and immediate user/developer adoption.
$20B+
TVL
04
EVM: Security & Risk
Battle-tested, minimized attack surface: The EVM has been stress-tested for 8+ years with billions in value. This matters for institutions, blue-chip DeFi (like Uniswap, Aave), and any application where the cost of a novel bug outweighs performance gains.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Stylus vs EVM: Arbitrum Execution
Direct comparison of execution environments on Arbitrum, focusing on performance, cost, and developer experience.
| Metric | Arbitrum EVM | Arbitrum Stylus |
|---|---|---|
Execution Speed (WASM vs EVM) | ~200-300 ms | ~50-100 ms |
Avg. Compute Cost per Tx | ~$0.10 - $0.30 | ~$0.01 - $0.05 |
Programming Languages | Solidity, Vyper | Rust, C, C++, AssemblyScript |
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | ||
Gas Fee Model | EVM Gas (Legacy) | WASM Gas (Optimized) |
Time to Finality (L2) | ~0.5 - 1.5 sec | ~0.5 - 1.5 sec |
Developer Onboarding | EVM Toolchain (Hardhat, Foundry) | Rust/C Toolchain + Stylus SDK |
EXECUTION LAYER COMPARISON
Stylus vs EVM: Performance & Cost on Arbitrum
Direct comparison of computational performance, cost, and developer features for Arbitrum's execution environments.
| Metric | Stylus (WASM) | Arbitrum EVM |
|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS |
| ~4,500 |
Avg. Compute Cost (per 1M gas) | $0.0001 - $0.001 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Language Support | Rust, C, C++ | Solidity, Vyper |
Gas for SHA256 Opcode | ~5 gas | ~60 gas |
Parallel Execution | ||
Time to Finality | ~400ms | ~400ms |
Mainnet Status | Beta (2024) | Production (2021) |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Strategic Fit: When to Choose Which Environment
Stylus for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for high-frequency, compute-heavy protocols where gas optimization is critical. Strengths: Native performance (Rust, C++) enables complex calculations (e.g., advanced AMM curves, risk engines) at 10-100x lower gas costs than Solidity. Direct memory access and parallel execution are ideal for oracles and perps. Caveat: Requires Rust/WASM expertise and careful audit for new VM surface area. Key Protocols: GMX-style perpetuals, Uniswap V4 hooks with intensive off-chain logic.
EVM for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for maximal composability, security, and immediate access to liquidity. Strengths: Battle-tested security model with $15B+ TVL on Arbitrum. Seamless integration with Ethereum's DeFi stack (AAVE, Compound forks). Vast developer tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and auditor familiarity reduce time-to-market. Caveat: Higher baseline gas costs for complex logic can limit product design. Key Protocols: Standardized lending (Radiant), yield aggregators, and forked liquidity pools.
pros-cons-a
Arbitrum Execution Environments
Stylus: Advantages and Trade-offs
A technical breakdown of Arbitrum's Stylus (WASM) versus its EVM execution layer, focusing on performance, cost, and developer trade-offs.
01
Stylus: Performance & Cost
WASM-native execution: Enables ~10x faster compute for complex logic (e.g., cryptography, game loops) by avoiding EVM opcode overhead. Gas efficiency: Up to 100x cheaper for compute-heavy operations, as seen in benchmarks for zk-proof verification and on-chain physics. This matters for high-frequency DeFi, fully on-chain games, and data-intensive dApps.
~10x
Faster Compute
100x
Cheaper Gas (Compute)
03
EVM: Ecosystem & Tooling
Massive composability: Seamless integration with $16B+ Arbitrum One TVL, 500+ dApps, and standards like ERC-20/721. Mature tooling: Hardhat, Foundry, Ethers.js, and The Graph are battle-tested. Developer familiarity: 200k+ Solidity devs can deploy immediately. This matters for protocols prioritizing liquidity integration, forking existing code, or rapid time-to-market.
$16B+
TVL on Arbitrum
500+
Integrated dApps
04
EVM: Security & Auditability
Proven security model: 8+ years of Solidity audits and formal verification tools (e.g., Certora, Scribble). Deterministic execution: EVM opcodes have predictable gas costs and behavior across all clients. Simpler state model: Easier for auditors to reason about reentrancy and storage patterns. This matters for DeFi protocols with >$100M TVL, where audit maturity and risk minimization are paramount.
pros-cons-b
Stylus vs EVM: Arbitrum Execution
EVM: Advantages and Trade-offs
Key strengths and trade-offs for choosing between Arbitrum's EVM and its new Stylus execution environment.
04
EVM: Security & Audit Maturity
Battle-tested VM: The EVM has a decade of security research, with well-understood patterns and vulnerabilities. Mature audit landscape: Hundreds of security firms (e.g., Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin) specialize in Solidity/EVM audits. This matters for protocols managing high-value assets (>$100M TVL) where conservative security and proven formal verification are paramount.
STYLUS VS EVM
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Security
A technical comparison of Arbitrum's execution environments, analyzing the architectural and security trade-offs between the traditional EVM and the new WebAssembly-based Stylus runtime.
Yes, Stylus is significantly faster for compute-intensive operations. Stylus executes WebAssembly (WASM) code, which can be 10-100x faster than EVM bytecode for complex logic like cryptographic proofs or game physics. This is due to WASM's near-native execution speed and more efficient memory model. However, for simple token transfers, the performance difference may be negligible as network latency becomes the bottleneck.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between Arbitrum's EVM and Stylus execution environments.
Arbitrum Nitro's EVM excels at developer accessibility and ecosystem liquidity because it maintains full bytecode compatibility with Ethereum. This allows for seamless deployment of existing Solidity/Vyper contracts and immediate access to a massive toolchain (Hardhat, Foundry) and a $2B+ TVL DeFi ecosystem. For example, protocols like GMX and Uniswap V3 ported to Arbitrum with minimal friction, instantly tapping into established user bases and capital.
Stylus takes a different approach by enabling WebAssembly (WASM) smart contracts, which can be written in Rust, C++, and other languages. This results in a trade-off between raw performance and ecosystem maturity. While Stylus contracts can achieve up to 10x faster execution and lower compute costs for CPU-intensive operations like zk-proof verification or complex game logic, they currently operate in a nascent ecosystem with fewer battle-tested libraries and auditing firms compared to the EVM.
The key architectural divergence is execution model versus compatibility. Stylus's WASM runtime uses ahead-of-time (AOT) compilation for near-native speed, ideal for performance-critical dApps. The EVM, while slower, benefits from the network effects of the world's largest smart contract standard. Your choice dictates your primary dependency: the Ethereum Virtual Machine or the broader WebAssembly toolchain.
Consider Arbitrum EVM if your priority is: - Speed to market and capital access - Maximizing composability with major DeFi protocols like Aave and Curve - Leveraging a mature security audit landscape for Solidity. The proven path offers lower immediate risk.
Choose Stylus when your project demands: - Maximum computational efficiency for tasks like on-chain gaming, order-book exchanges, or data processing - Attracting developers from outside Web3 using Rust or C++ - Willingness to pioneer in exchange for first-mover advantages in a higher-performance environment. The performance ceiling is significantly higher.
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