ZK Stack Appchains excel at providing dedicated, customizable capacity because they operate as independent Layer 1 blockchains secured by ZK proofs to Ethereum. This sovereignty grants developers full control over their virtual machine, sequencer, and data availability layer. For example, a high-frequency DeFi protocol can configure its chain for sub-second block times and minimal base fees, unconstrained by a shared network's activity. This model is exemplified by projects like zkSync Hyperchains and Polygon CDK chains, which can theoretically scale horizontally to tens of thousands of transactions per second (TPS) across the ecosystem.
LABS
Comparisons
ZK Stack Appchain vs ZK Rollup: Capacity
A technical comparison of ZK Stack Appchain and ZK Rollup capacity, analyzing throughput, cost, security, and architectural trade-offs for engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A foundational comparison of architectural trade-offs between sovereign appchains and shared rollups for scaling with zero-knowledge proofs.
ZK Rollups (like zkSync Era, Starknet, Linea) take a different approach by pooling capacity across a shared, canonical network. This results in a critical trade-off: while individual throughput is capped by the shared sequencer's resources—often ranging from 50-200 TPS—it provides immediate liquidity, unified security, and network effects from day one. Developers sacrifice fine-tuned control for a plug-and-play environment where composability with established dApps like Uniswap or Aave is inherent and total value locked (TVL) is concentrated.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing absolute, dedicated throughput and possessing full technical sovereignty, choose a ZK Stack Appchain. If you prioritize immediate access to shared liquidity, security, and developer tools without the overhead of bootstrapping a new chain, choose a canonical ZK Rollup. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether you need a specialized, high-performance venue or a ready-made, interconnected ecosystem.
tldr-summary
Capacity & Throughput
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
A direct comparison of architectural approaches to scaling. ZK Rollups offer shared security, while ZK Stack Appchains provide sovereign capacity.
01
ZK Rollup: Shared Capacity
Pros: Inherits the security and decentralization of the L1 (e.g., Ethereum). Cons: Throughput is shared with other dApps on the same rollup (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet). Peak TPS is limited by the single sequencer/prover's hardware and the L1's data availability costs. Best for: Protocols prioritizing maximal security over absolute, dedicated throughput, like DeFi bluechips (Uniswap, Aave).
02
ZK Rollup: Cost Efficiency at Scale
Pros: Transaction fees are amortized across all users of the rollup. High-volume dApps benefit from network effects. Cons: Congestion from one popular dApp (e.g., an NFT mint) can spike fees for all others. Best for: Applications expecting variable, non-continuous load that can tolerate shared resource contention.
03
ZK Stack Appchain: Dedicated Capacity
Pros: Full control over the chain's parameters (block gas limit, sequencer/prover specs). Achieves sovereign throughput (e.g., 1000+ TPS) isolated from other chains' activity. Cons: Requires bootstrapping its own validator/decentralized sequencer set, a trade-off in decentralization vs. customizability. Best for: High-frequency applications like orderbook DEXs (dYdX v4), Web3 games, or social networks requiring predictable, low-latency performance.
04
ZK Stack Appchain: Predictable Economics
Pros: Fixed operational costs for data availability (e.g., to Celestia, EigenDA) and proof verification on L1. No risk of fee spikes from unrelated dApp activity. Cons: Upfront capital and operational overhead to run the chain infrastructure. Best for: Enterprises and protocols with steady, high-volume transaction flows that need a predictable cost structure for unit economics.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
ZK Stack Appchain vs ZK Rollup: Capacity Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key scalability and throughput metrics for infrastructure selection.
| Metric | ZK Stack Appchain | ZK Rollup |
|---|---|---|
Theoretical Peak TPS | 10,000+ | 2,000 |
Transaction Finality Time | < 1 sec | ~10 min |
Data Availability Cost | ~$0.001 per tx | ~$0.10 per tx |
Custom Gas Token | ||
Sequencer Control | ||
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Shared Security |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
ZK Stack Appchain vs ZK Rollup: Capacity
Key architectural trade-offs for transaction throughput, data availability, and scalability.
01
ZK Stack Appchain: Sovereign Capacity
Full control over data availability and execution: Appchains can choose their own DA layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA) and sequencer, enabling unlimited theoretical TPS constrained only by the chosen infrastructure. This matters for hyper-scalable gaming or social apps needing dedicated, predictable block space.
10,000+ TPS
Theoretical Peak
02
ZK Stack Appchain: Cost & Complexity
Higher operational overhead: Requires bootstrapping and securing a separate validator/sequencer set and a DA solution. This matters for teams with smaller devops budgets who prefer to focus on application logic rather than chain infrastructure.
$50K+
Annual Ops Est.
03
ZK Rollup: Shared Security & Simplicity
Leverages Ethereum's consensus and data availability: Inherits security from L1 while posting compressed proofs. This matters for DeFi protocols and asset-heavy dApps where capital security is paramount and moderate throughput (e.g., 100-2000 TPS) is sufficient.
L1 Security
Inherited
04
ZK Rollup: Shared Bottlenecks
Throughput capped by L1 data bandwidth: All transaction data must be posted to Ethereum (call data), making peak TPS and cost per transaction subject to mainnet congestion. This matters for mass-consumer applications where ultra-low, stable fees are non-negotiable.
~80 KB/s
Ethereum DA Limit
pros-cons-b
ZK Stack Appchain vs ZK Rollup: Capacity
ZK Rollup: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for high-throughput applications at a glance.
01
ZK Stack Appchain: Sovereign Capacity
Dedicated block space: Each appchain (e.g., zkSync Hyperchains, Layer N) has its own sequencer and execution environment, eliminating competition for gas. This matters for gaming, social, or DeFi protocols requiring predictable, high throughput (10k+ TPS potential) and zero failed transactions due to network congestion.
02
ZK Stack Appchain: Customizable Data Availability
Flexible DA layer choice: Developers can choose between Ethereum (expensive, secure), Celestia, EigenDA, or a custom DAC. This reduces data posting costs by up to 99% compared to pure Ethereum L2s. This matters for high-frequency applications like order-book DEXs (e.g., dYdX v4) where cost-per-transaction is critical.
03
Standard ZK Rollup: Shared Security & Liquidity
Unified state and security: Rollups like zkSync Era, Starknet, and Polygon zkEVM share a single settlement layer (Ethereum) and a common bridge. This matters for DeFi protocols and NFT marketplaces that benefit from native composability and a large, shared user base (e.g., $1B+ TVL ecosystems).
04
Standard ZK Rollup: Operational Simplicity
No validator set management: The core team (e.g., Matter Labs, StarkWare) operates the centralized sequencer and prover. This matters for teams with sub-$500K budgets who cannot afford the DevOps overhead of running their own chain infrastructure and prefer a managed L2 solution.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
ZK Stack Appchain for High-Throughput Apps
Verdict: The definitive choice for applications requiring dedicated, scalable capacity. Strengths:
- Isolated, Sovereign Capacity: Your application does not compete for blockspace with other protocols. You control the gas limit, block time, and sequencer logic, enabling predictable, high TPS (e.g., 1000+).
- Custom Data Availability (DA): Choose between Ethereum (ZK Rollup mode) or a Celestia/Avail (Validium mode) for massive cost savings on data, directly scaling transaction capacity.
- Tailored VM: Deploy with the zkEVM for EVM compatibility or a custom VM (e.g., zkWasm) optimized for your application's logic. Best For: Mass-market gaming, order-book DEXs (like dYdX v4), high-frequency social apps, and enterprise systems requiring guaranteed performance SLAs.
ZK Rollup (e.g., zkSync Era, Starknet) for High-Throughput Apps
Verdict: A powerful shared scaling solution, but throughput is ultimately shared and contested. Strengths:
- Proven Shared Throughput: Leverages the aggregated security and liquidity of a large, existing ecosystem. Modern ZK Rollups like zkSync Era can handle 100-200 TPS under optimal conditions.
- No Operational Overhead: You do not need to bootstrap a validator set or manage chain infrastructure. Trade-off: During network congestion (e.g., a major NFT mint or token launch), your app's user experience will degrade alongside all others on the chain. Capacity is a shared resource.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between a ZK Stack Appchain and a ZK Rollup is a fundamental decision between sovereignty and shared security, with direct implications for your application's capacity.
ZK Stack Appchains excel at providing dedicated, horizontally scalable capacity because they are sovereign L2/L3 chains with independent execution environments. For example, a high-throughput gaming or social app like zkSync Hyperchains can achieve thousands of TPS in isolation, unconstrained by the activity of other dApps. This model allows for custom gas tokens, bespoke data availability layers (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA), and protocol-level modifications, offering near-limitless theoretical scalability for a single application's needs.
ZK Rollups like zkSync Era, Starknet, or Polygon zkEVM take a different approach by pooling capacity across a shared, canonical network. This results in a trade-off: while individual dApps compete for blockspace, they benefit from native composability, a unified liquidity pool, and the robust, battle-tested security of a single large sequencer. The capacity is high—often 100-200+ TPS—but is a shared resource, making performance more predictable for mainstream DeFi protocols like Uniswap or Aave which rely on synchronous interactions.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum, guaranteed throughput and architectural sovereignty for a vertically integrated application, choose a ZK Stack Appchain. If you prioritize native composability, shared security, and immediate access to a mature ecosystem over unbounded dedicated capacity, choose an established ZK Rollup. For CTOs, the decision hinges on whether the application's growth model is best served by its own dedicated infrastructure or by leveraging the network effects of an existing superchain.
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