Arbitrum Nitro vs zkSync Era: EVM Fit

Specific advantage: Runs unmodified EVM bytecode via Geth fork. This matters for protocols migrating from Ethereum Mainnet (e.g., GMX, Uniswap V3) requiring zero code changes and full support for hardhat/foundry tooling.

Specific advantage: First-mover advantage with $18B+ TVL and 500+ deployed dApps. This matters for DeFi protocols needing deep liquidity and a proven, stable environment with established bridges (Arbitrum Bridge, Stargate).

Specific advantage: Built-in, protocol-level AA (ERC-4337) with paymasters for gas sponsorship. This matters for consumer dApps aiming for seamless onboarding (e.g., social logins, subscription models) without relying on wallet modifications.

Specific advantage: Validity proofs (ZK-SNARKs) provide cryptographic security with fast finality to L1. This matters for institutions and high-value applications prioritizing the strongest L2 security model and preparing for a multi-chain ZK future.

Specific advantage: Optimistic rollup design allows for ~40k TPS in practice with lower proving overhead. This matters for high-frequency trading dApps and gaming where current low-latency, high-volume execution is critical.

Specific advantage: ZK proofs compress state diffs more efficiently than Optimistic data. This matters for sustained scalability as transaction volume grows, leading to potentially lower long-term fee pressure for users.

Specific advantage: Near-perfect EVM equivalence. Supports 100% of EVM opcodes and Solidity features, including custom precompiles. This matters for protocols migrating from Ethereum mainnet (e.g., GMX, Uniswap V3) requiring zero code modifications. The developer experience with tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and The Graph is identical to mainnet.

Specific advantage: Lower transaction costs for complex interactions. As an Optimistic Rollup, its proof system is computationally cheaper, making it ideal for high-frequency, complex dApps like perpetual DEXs and on-chain games. Current TPS is ~40-80k, with fees often 80-90% lower than Ethereum L1.

Specific disadvantage: 7-day challenge period for trustless withdrawals. While fast confirmations occur on L2, moving assets to L1 Ethereum requires a week or a third-party bridge. This matters for institutions or users requiring capital efficiency and is a key differentiator from ZK proofs, which offer near-instant finality.

Specific advantage: Built-in native account abstraction (AA) at the protocol level and instant cryptographic finality. This matters for projects building novel user experiences (e.g., sponsored transactions, social recovery wallets) and applications requiring fast, trustless L1 withdrawals. Its LLVM-based compiler supports Vyper and Solidity.

Specific advantage: Theoretical scalability ceiling is higher due to succinct ZK proofs. As proof recursion and hardware improve, TPS can scale more linearly without increasing L1 data costs. This matters for mass-adoption scenarios and protocols planning for a 5-10 year horizon where volume may increase 100x.

Specific disadvantage: Not fully EVM-equivalent; uses a custom VM (zkEVM) in circuit. Some opcodes behave differently, and complex smart contracts may require audits for subtle bugs. Proving costs make simple transactions (e.g., ETH transfers) slightly more expensive than on Optimistic Rollups, though complex ops can be cheaper.

Full EVM Opcode Support: Executes all Ethereum opcodes natively, including precompiles like ecRecover. This matters for complex DeFi protocols (e.g., Balancer, GMX) and enterprise migrations where byte-for-byte compatibility is non-negotiable. Minimal code adaptation required.

Dominant Market Position: ~$18B TVL and integration with all major tools (The Graph, Pyth, Chainlink CCIP). This matters for protocols prioritizing liquidity depth and developers requiring proven infrastructure. The network effect is a significant moat.

ZK-Proof Finality: State updates are verified on Ethereum L1 in ~1 hour, providing stronger cryptographic security guarantees. This matters for exchanges and payment rails where withdrawal finality speed is critical. Higher theoretical TPS ceiling than optimistic rollups.

7-Day Challenge Period: Funds withdrawn to L1 are subject to a standard optimistic rollup delay. This matters for high-frequency traders or institutions requiring immediate liquidity portability, adding capital efficiency friction compared to ZKRs.

Custom Compiler & Precompiles: Requires zksolc/zkvyper and lacks some Ethereum precompiles (e.g., modExp). This matters for teams with large, existing Solidity codebases, as audits and testing must account for zkEVM-specific quirks, increasing migration overhead.