Polygon zkEVM excels at bytecode-level compatibility, allowing developers to deploy existing Solidity smart contracts and tools like Hardhat and Foundry with minimal changes. This is achieved by executing EVM opcodes inside a zero-knowledge proof system. For example, its mainnet beta consistently processes transactions for under $0.01, and its ecosystem has attracted major DeFi protocols like Aave and Balancer, facilitating a smoother migration path for Ethereum-native teams.
LABS
Comparisons
Polygon zkEVM vs Starknet: EVM Support
A technical analysis comparing the EVM compatibility, developer experience, and architectural trade-offs between Polygon zkEVM and Starknet for protocol architects and engineering leaders.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The EVM Compatibility Spectrum in ZK Rollups
A technical breakdown of how Polygon zkEVM and Starknet approach Ethereum compatibility, defining the trade-offs between seamless migration and maximal performance.
Starknet takes a fundamentally different approach by using its own high-performance virtual machine (Cairo VM) and native smart contract language (Cairo). This results in a trade-off: while it requires rewriting Solidity code, it enables superior scalability and lower computational costs for complex logic. Starknet's architecture has demonstrated this with peak throughput exceeding 100 TPS on its mainnet, supporting computationally intensive applications like dYdX's order book and Immutable's gaming ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is minimizing migration friction and leveraging the entire Ethereum toolchain, choose Polygon zkEVM. If you prioritize maximal scalability for novel, computation-heavy applications and are willing to adopt a new development stack, choose Starknet. Your decision hinges on whether immediate compatibility or long-term architectural performance is the primary constraint for your protocol.
tldr-summary
EVM Compatibility & Developer Experience
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
A direct comparison of bytecode-level compatibility versus native smart contract language design.
01
Polygon zkEVM: Seamless Portability
Bytecode-level EVM equivalence: Executes unmodified Ethereum bytecode with near-identical opcode behavior. This matters for existing dApp migration (e.g., Aave, Uniswap V3) and teams wanting to reuse existing Solidity tooling (Hardhat, Foundry, MetaMask) with minimal friction.
>95%
Opcode Coverage
02
Polygon zkEVM: Gas Cost Predictability
Familiar gas metering: Uses an Ethereum-like gas model, making transaction cost estimation predictable for users and developers. This matters for financial applications where precise fee calculation is critical and for auditors familiar with EVM gas optimization patterns.
04
Starknet: Long-Term Scalability
VM-agnostic proof system: Starknet's proof system can verify execution of any VM, future-proofing against architectural shifts. This matters for protocols planning decade-long roadmaps and enterprise consortia requiring maximum flexibility for custom business logic.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Head-to-Head: EVM Support & Core Specifications
Direct comparison of EVM compatibility, performance, and core specifications.
| Metric | Polygon zkEVM | Starknet |
|---|---|---|
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | ||
Ethereum Tooling Support | Full (MetaMask, Hardhat) | Partial (via Kakarot, Argent) |
Transaction Finality | ~15-20 minutes | ~4-6 hours |
Proving System | zk-SNARKs | zk-STARKs |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Programming Languages | Solidity, Vyper | Cairo |
Gas Fee Model | Ethereum-like (ETH) | Starknet-native (STRK) |
pros-cons-a
EVM Support: Polygon zkEVM vs Starknet
Polygon zkEVM: Strengths and Trade-offs
A technical comparison of EVM compatibility, focusing on developer experience, tooling, and migration trade-offs.
01
Polygon zkEVM: Bytecode-Level Compatibility
Specific advantage: Executes unmodified Ethereum bytecode via a zkEVM. This means existing Solidity/Vyper smart contracts, developer tools (Hardhat, Foundry), and wallets (MetaMask) work out-of-the-box.
- Migration Path: Deploy existing dApps with minimal changes.
- Tooling: Full support for Ethers.js, Web3.js, and The Graph.
- This matters for teams with established Ethereum codebases seeking a frictionless scaling solution.
02
Polygon zkEVM: Trade-off in Proof Generation
Specific trade-off: The zkEVM's high compatibility can lead to longer proof generation times (~10 minutes) compared to Starknet's STARK-based Cairo VM. This impacts time-to-finality for the L1 settlement layer.
- Throughput Impact: Higher compatibility can mean less optimal proving circuits.
- This matters for applications requiring ultra-fast, sub-minute finality guarantees, where trade-offs in compatibility may be acceptable.
03
Starknet: Cairo VM & Superior Performance
Specific advantage: Uses a purpose-built Cairo VM optimized for STARK proofs, enabling extremely high throughput and lower proving costs at scale. Native account abstraction is a first-class citizen.
- Performance: Potential for 1000+ TPS with sub-minute finality.
- Innovation: Enables novel applications via native features impossible in the EVM.
- This matters for greenfield projects prioritizing maximal scalability and willing to adopt a new stack.
04
Starknet: Trade-off in Developer Friction
Specific trade-off: Requires learning Cairo and a new toolchain. While Warp offers a Solidity-to-Cairo transpiler, it's an additional layer with potential incompatibilities.
- Ecosystem Gap: Some Ethereum-native tools and auditing firms have less mature support.
- Migration Cost: Porting complex dApps requires significant rewrites.
- This matters for teams with tight deadlines or deep investment in Solidity expertise, where migration cost is a primary constraint.
pros-cons-b
The Developer Experience Showdown
Polygon zkEVM vs Starknet: EVM Support
Choosing between EVM-equivalence and a new VM paradigm? This breakdown compares developer tooling, compatibility, and the trade-offs for your stack.
01
Polygon zkEVM: Seamless EVM Migration
Bytecode-level equivalence: Deploy unmodified EVM smart contracts (Solidity/Vyper) with existing toolchains like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask. This matters for teams prioritizing speed-to-market and leveraging existing Ethereum developer talent.
- Tooling: Full support for Remix, Etherscan, and The Graph.
- Gas Costs: Uses ETH as native gas token, simplifying user experience.
- Example: Aave, Uniswap V3, and Balancer deployed with minimal code changes.
~100%
Opcode Compatibility
02
Polygon zkEVM: Trade-off in Throughput
Inherited EVM constraints: The commitment to full equivalence can limit maximum theoretical throughput compared to custom VMs. This matters for applications requiring ultra-high TPS (e.g., hyper-scalable gaming, micro-transactions).
- Proving Overhead: EVM opcode proving is more computationally intensive than STARK-friendly Cairo operations.
- Current Scale: ~40-50 TPS, constrained by prover capacity and Ethereum data availability costs.
03
Starknet: Cairo VM & Peak Performance
Native ZK-first design: The Cairo VM is built for STARK proofs, enabling higher theoretical scalability and lower proving costs for complex logic. This matters for compute-intensive dApps like on-chain AI, advanced DeFi derivatives, and fully on-chain games.
- Tooling: Cairo-specific tools (Scarb, Starkli, Voyager).
- Ecosystem: Native projects like Starknet DeFi (Ekubo, Nostra), gaming (Influence, Realms).
- Performance: Capable of 100+ TPS for Cairo-native applications.
Cairo 1.0
Native Language
04
Starknet: EVM Compatibility Layer
Strategic compromise via Kakarot: A Cairo-based zkEVM under development, offering EVM compatibility as a secondary layer rather than a native feature. This matters for teams who want future EVM access but are willing to adopt Cairo now for its performance benefits.
- Current State: Kakarot is in testnet; not yet production-ready for mainnet deployments.
- Path to Compatibility: Enables a two-track ecosystem: high-performance Cairo dApps and eventual EVM dApp porting.
- Trade-off: Immediate development requires learning Cairo and its toolchain.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Polygon zkEVM for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for migrating existing protocols. Strengths: Full EVM equivalence means you can deploy Solidity/Vyper contracts from Ethereum, Arbitrum, or Optimism with minimal changes. This is proven by major deployments like Aave, Uniswap V3, and Balancer. The ecosystem benefits from Polygon's established PoS bridge and liquidity. Key Metric: ~$150M TVL with deep liquidity in native assets like WETH and USDC. Considerations: Current TPS (~40-50) and finality (~10-20 mins) are sufficient for most DeFi but lag behind alternatives. Prover costs are subsidized, but long-term fee sustainability is a watch item.
Starknet for DeFi
Verdict: The high-performance engine for novel, compute-intensive applications. Strengths: Starknet's Cairo VM enables massively complex logic (e.g., perpetual DEXs with advanced risk engines) at low cost. Native account abstraction simplifies UX. Protocols like zkLend and Nostra demonstrate this capability. Key Metric: Can batch thousands of transactions, achieving ultra-low fees per swap (<$0.01) at scale. Considerations: Requires learning Cairo. While Warp transpiler exists, it's not a 1:1 Solidity translation. Ecosystem liquidity is growing but newer than Polygon's. Bridging assets requires StarkGate.
POLYGON ZKEVM VS STARKNET
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Proof Systems
A technical comparison of the core architectures, proof systems, and EVM compatibility of Polygon zkEVM and Starknet, focusing on the trade-offs for developers and enterprises.
Yes, Polygon zkEVM offers near-perfect EVM bytecode compatibility. It executes Ethereum's opcodes directly, allowing developers to deploy existing Solidity/Vyper contracts with minimal changes. Starknet uses its own Cairo VM, requiring a rewrite or transpilation of contracts, though tools like Warp (Solidity to Cairo) exist. For teams prioritizing migration speed and tooling familiarity, Polygon zkEVM is superior. For those building new, computation-heavy applications from scratch, Starknet's Cairo offers long-term design advantages.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between Polygon zkEVM and Starknet for EVM support is a strategic decision between seamless compatibility and ultimate scalability.
Polygon zkEVM excels at developer accessibility and ecosystem integration because it is a Type 2 zkEVM, striving for full bytecode-level equivalence with Ethereum. For example, this allows developers to deploy existing Solidity smart contracts and use familiar tools like Hardhat and Foundry with minimal friction, directly leveraging Ethereum's massive $50B+ DeFi TVL. Its EVM compatibility is its primary value proposition, offering a smooth migration path for protocols like Aave and Uniswap V3.
Starknet takes a different approach by prioritizing raw performance and a custom execution environment. Its Cairo VM is not EVM-equivalent but uses a high-performance STARK-based prover, resulting in significantly lower transaction costs and higher theoretical throughput. This trade-off means developers must write or compile to Cairo, using tools like the Cairo compiler and Starknet Foundry, which creates a steeper learning curve but unlocks novel application designs like those seen in dYdX V4.
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate developer adoption, tooling familiarity, and migrating existing Ethereum dApps, choose Polygon zkEVM. Its EVM equivalence is a powerful on-ramp. If you prioritize long-term scalability, minimal transaction fees, and are building a novel application from the ground up, choose Starknet. Its Cairo-based stack offers a more performant foundation for the future, albeit with a current ecosystem size (~$130M TVL) that is a fraction of Polygon's sidechain and L2 networks.
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