zkSync Hyperchains excel at unified security and liquidity because they are natively secured by the zkSync Era L2 and share its canonical bridge. For example, this design ensures atomic composability between Hyperchains and the main zkSync Era network, creating a seamless ecosystem for applications like SyncSwap or Maverick Protocol that require deep, shared liquidity pools.
LABS
Comparisons
zkSync Hyperchains vs StarkNet: Appchains
A technical analysis comparing zkSync's Hyperchains and StarkNet's Appchains for CTOs and protocol architects. We examine architecture, performance, cost, and ecosystem to determine the best fit for high-value deployments.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Sovereign L2s
zkSync Hyperchains and StarkNet Appchains represent two dominant, yet philosophically distinct, visions for scaling Ethereum with sovereign Layer 2s.
StarkNet Appchains (Madara) take a different approach by offering maximal sovereignty and customizability. Built on the Starknet Stack with the Madara sequencer, Appchains can implement their own fee tokens, governance models, and data availability layers (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA). This results in a trade-off: greater independence at the cost of fragmented liquidity and more complex bridging compared to Hyperchains.
The key trade-off: If your priority is ecosystem integration and shared security for a DeFi or gaming application, choose zkSync Hyperchains. If you prioritize complete technical sovereignty and need a bespoke chain for a specific enterprise or high-throughput use case, choose StarkNet Appchains.
tldr-summary
zkSync Hyperchains vs StarkNet Appchains
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of the two dominant appchain frameworks for ZK-rollups, focusing on architectural trade-offs and primary use-case fit.
01
Choose zkSync Hyperchains for: Native Ethereum Composability
Key Advantage: Hyperchains are natively interoperable via the zkSync Era mainnet, sharing its security and state. This enables seamless cross-chain transactions and asset transfers without bridges. This matters for protocols like Aave or Uniswap that require deep liquidity and composability across a unified ecosystem.
Native ETH
Shared Gas Token
02
Choose StarkNet Appchains for: Sovereign Performance & Customization
Key Advantage: Appchains (via Madara) are fully sovereign StarkEx or StarkNet Prover chains. They offer unlimited customization of the sequencer, prover, and fee token (e.g., USDC, STRK). This matters for high-throughput, closed-loop applications like dYdX or Sorare that need deterministic performance and bespoke economics.
Any Token
Custom Gas
03
Choose zkSync Hyperchains for: Faster Time-to-Market
Key Advantage: Leverages the battle-tested zkSync Era ZK Stack with a managed, shared prover network. Developers get a more opinionated, integrated framework, reducing operational overhead. This matters for teams like zkSync Name Service or Gridex that prioritize rapid deployment over deep infrastructure control.
04
Choose StarkNet Appchains for: Maximum Scalability & Cost Control
Key Advantage: Dedicated sequencer and prover resources prevent contention with other chains. Transaction throughput (TPS) and costs are isolated and predictable. This matters for gaming studios like Immutable or high-frequency DeFi that require sub-cent fees and guaranteed capacity, independent of mainnet congestion.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zkSync Hyperchains vs StarkNet Appchains
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for custom L2/L3 deployment.
| Metric | zkSync Hyperchains | StarkNet Appchains |
|---|---|---|
Base Tech Stack | zkSync ZK Stack (zkEVM) | StarkNet Stack (Cairo VM) |
Custom Token for Gas | ||
Time to Launch | < 1 week | ~1-2 months |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Sequencer Control | Managed or Sovereign | Managed |
Prover Network | zkSync Era Validium | StarkNet SHARP |
Primary Use Case | High-throughput DeFi, Gaming | Complex logic, Enterprise |
pros-cons-a
APPCHAIN ARCHITECTURE COMPARISON
zkSync Hyperchains vs StarkNet Appchains
A technical breakdown of the two leading ZK-Rollup appchain solutions. StarkNet's fractal scaling and zkSync's Hyperchains represent different trade-offs in sovereignty, interoperability, and developer experience.
01
Choose zkSync Hyperchains for...
Native L1 Security & Interoperability: Hyperchains inherit security directly from the zkSync Era L2 and use native L1-bridged ETH for gas. This creates a seamless, trust-minimized multi-chain environment for protocols like SyncSwap or EraLend that need to move assets fluidly.
Key Advantage: Shared State & Unified Liquidity across all Hyperchains via the zkSync Portal. This matters for DeFi ecosystems requiring atomic composability without fragmented liquidity pools.
~3.5 sec
Time to Finality
Ethereum
Base Security Layer
03
Choose StarkNet Appchains (Madara) for...
Maximum Sovereignty & Customization: Built with the Madara stack using Cairo VM, Appchains offer full control over sequencers, provers, and fee tokens (e.g., STRK or any asset). This is critical for gaming studios like Cartridge or institutions needing bespoke governance and data availability layers.
Key Advantage: Flexible DA Options. Can post data to Ethereum, Celestia, or Avail. This matters for ultra-low-cost chains where cost, not Ethereum consensus, is the primary constraint.
Cairo VM
Execution Environment
Multiple
DA Layer Options
pros-cons-b
zkSync Hyperchains vs. StarkNet Appchains
StarkNet Appchains: Pros and Cons
Key architectural and operational trade-offs for CTOs evaluating sovereign ZK-rollup frameworks.
01
zkSync Hyperchains: Pro - Native L1 Security & Composability
Inherits Ethereum's full security via ZK proofs settled directly on Ethereum L1. This provides unmatched finality guarantees and seamless asset interoperability with the mainnet. This matters for protocols requiring maximum capital security like institutional DeFi (e.g., Aave, Compound) or high-value NFT platforms.
02
zkSync Hyperchains: Pro - Hyperbridges & Unified Ecosystem
Native cross-hyperchain communication via ZK proofs (Hyperbridges), enabling trust-minimized composability across a network of chains. This creates a unified liquidity pool and user experience. This matters for applications that need to scale horizontally across multiple chains (e.g., a gaming studio launching separate shards, or a DEX aggregator).
03
zkSync Hyperchains: Con - Constrained by L1 Data Availability
Data availability (DA) is anchored to Ethereum, inheriting its costs and potential congestion. This can lead to higher operational costs for high-throughput applications. This matters for use cases like high-frequency trading, social media, or massively multiplayer games where sub-cent transaction fees are critical.
04
StarkNet Appchains: Pro - Flexible Data Availability Layers
Can choose any DA layer (Ethereum, Celestia, Avail, EigenDA) or run in validium mode. This allows teams to optimize for cost vs. security, reducing fees by 10-100x. This matters for consumer-scale applications (e.g., Web3 gaming, content platforms) where ultra-low cost is a primary requirement.
05
StarkNet Appchains: Pro - Full Sovereignty & Customization
Complete control over the sequencer, fee token, and governance. Developers can fork the Starknet stack (Madara) and modify the VM. This matters for enterprises and protocols needing bespoke features (e.g., private transactions, custom fee models, specific upgrade schedules) that aren't possible on a shared L2.
06
StarkNet Appchains: Con - Fragmented Liquidity & Tooling
Appchains are isolated by default, requiring custom bridges and liquidity bootstrapping. The tooling ecosystem (Voyager, Braavos) is primarily built for the main StarkNet L2. This matters for DeFi protocols that rely on deep, shared liquidity pools and a large, readily-addressable user base.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Guide: Which Appchain for Your Use Case?
zkSync Hyperchains for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for established protocols and capital efficiency. Strengths:
- Native Account Abstraction: Seamless user onboarding with sponsored transactions and batched operations via ERC-4337.
- EVM-Equivalence: Minimal code changes required for deployment; supports Solidity/Vyper with familiar tooling (Hardhat, Foundry).
- Proven Ecosystem: High TVL anchor with protocols like SyncSwap, Maverick, and EZETH driving deep liquidity.
- Cost Predictability: Fees are stable and paid in ETH, simplifying treasury management.
StarkNet Appchains for DeFi
Verdict: The high-performance engine for novel, computationally-intensive applications. Strengths:
- Cairo VM: Superior performance for complex logic (e.g., perpetual DEX order books, advanced AMM curves).
- Lower Theoretical Fees: StarkEx-based validiums (like dYdX, Sorare) demonstrate ultra-low cost per transaction.
- Shared Prover Network: Potential for cost-sharing and security aggregation across appchains. Trade-off: Requires learning Cairo, and the ecosystem is newer with less TVL than zkSync.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your infrastructure choice between zkSync's Hyperchains and StarkNet's Appchains.
zkSync Hyperchains excel at developer velocity and ecosystem integration because they inherit the security and native token (ETH) of the zkSync Era L2, while offering customizable sovereignty. For example, a project like SyncSwap could launch a dedicated, low-latency DEX chain without fragmenting liquidity from the main L2, leveraging the shared bridge and proven ZK Stack tooling for faster deployment.
StarkNet Appchains take a different approach by prioritizing maximum performance and flexibility through a dedicated, isolated CairoVM instance. This results in a trade-off: you gain superior, predictable throughput (e.g., 1000+ TPS for a gaming appchain) and the ability to customize everything from the sequencer to the fee token, but you assume more operational overhead and bootstrap your own security and liquidity from scratch.
The key architectural divergence is sovereignty versus synergy. A Hyperchain is an extension of an existing, high-TVL ecosystem (zkSync Era: ~$800M), ideal for scaling a component of a larger application. An Appchain is a sovereign performance enclave, best for applications like high-frequency gaming or order-book DEXs that need to bypass shared network constraints entirely.
Consider zkSync Hyperchains if your priority is seamless integration with the zkSync ecosystem, rapid time-to-market using familiar tooling, and maintaining composability with major DeFi protocols like Maverick Protocol and EraLend. The shared security model and ETH-denominated gas are significant advantages for user experience.
Choose StarkNet Appchains when your application demands the absolute highest and most consistent throughput, requires a custom fee token (e.g., a game's native token), or needs deeply tailored VM logic. This path suits well-funded teams ready to manage their own infrastructure for maximal control, as seen in early adopters like dYdX v4 (built on Cosmos, but indicative of the appchain-for-performance trend).
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
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