Scroll excels at bytecode-level EVM equivalence, prioritizing developer experience and security by preserving the exact execution semantics of Ethereum. This means existing tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and MetaMask work out-of-the-box, and smart contracts migrate with near-zero refactoring. Its conservative, academic approach, built in collaboration with the Ethereum Foundation, results in high security confidence but historically higher proving costs, as seen in early mainnet gas fees that were multiples of Ethereum L1.
LABS
Comparisons
Scroll vs Polygon zkEVM: EVM Match
A technical comparison of Scroll and Polygon zkEVM, two leading zero-knowledge EVM rollups. We analyze performance, cost, security, developer experience, and ecosystem to help CTOs and protocol architects make an informed infrastructure decision.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for the True zkEVM
A data-driven comparison of Scroll's bytecode-level compatibility versus Polygon zkEVM's performance-optimized architecture for CTOs making a foundational infrastructure choice.
Polygon zkEVM takes a different approach by implementing EVM equivalence in a zk-friendly instruction set (zkASM), trading some bytecode-level purity for significant performance gains. This architecture, combined with aggressive aggregation via the Polygon AggLayer, targets superior throughput and lower costs. For example, its mainnet regularly demonstrates transaction finality under 10 minutes and has consistently maintained a Total Value Locked (TVL) exceeding $130 million, indicating strong early adoption and network effects.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security auditability and minimizing migration risk for complex, existing dApps, choose Scroll. If you prioritize scalability, lower transaction costs, and integration into a broader multi-chain ecosystem like the AggLayer, choose Polygon zkEVM. Your decision hinges on whether perfect compatibility or optimized performance is the primary constraint for your protocol's next evolution.
tldr-summary
Scroll vs Polygon zkEVM
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of core strengths and trade-offs for two leading Type 2 zkEVMs.
01
Scroll: Superior EVM Equivalence
True bytecode-level compatibility: Scroll's zkEVM is a Type 2 (EVM-equivalent) that executes Ethereum bytecode directly, requiring no recompilation. This matters for deploying complex, existing dApps (like Aave or Uniswap V3 forks) with minimal friction and ensuring all opcodes behave identically to Ethereum L1.
Type 2
EVM Equivalence
02
Scroll: Ethereum-Native Security
Direct L1 security inheritance: Scroll's decentralized prover network and canonical bridge are secured by Ethereum consensus and Ethereum's battle-tested base layer. This matters for protocols prioritizing maximal security and censorship resistance, as the trust assumptions are anchored to Ethereum L1 validators.
Ethereum L1
Security Root
03
Polygon zkEVM: Mature Ecosystem & Tooling
Established developer network: As part of the Polygon ecosystem, it benefits from deep integration with tools like Alchemy, The Graph, and Chainlink, plus a large existing user base. This matters for teams seeking immediate liquidity, user acquisition, and proven infrastructure support.
$1B+
TVL
04
Polygon zkEVM: Aggregated Liquidity & Interop
Unified liquidity via AggLayer: Polygon's AggLayer enables native cross-chain interoperability and shared liquidity with other Polygon chains (CDK, PoS). This matters for applications that need to scale across multiple chains without fragmenting user experience or capital.
AggLayer
Architecture
06
Polygon zkEVM: Performance & Cost Predictability
Optimized for high throughput: Uses a Type 2.5 zkEVM (Polygon zkEVM) with some precompiles handled off-chain, enabling faster proving times and more stable transaction fees. This matters for high-frequency applications (gaming, perp DEXs) where low, predictable cost is critical.
< $0.01
Avg. Tx Cost
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Scroll vs Polygon zkEVM: EVM Match
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for two leading zk-rollup EVM solutions.
| Metric | Scroll | Polygon zkEVM |
|---|---|---|
Transaction Finality (L1 Confirmation) | ~15-20 min | ~30-60 min |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.05 - $0.15 |
EVM Equivalence Level | Bytecode-level | Bytecode-level |
Native Bridge to Ethereum | ||
Proving System | zkEVM | zkEVM |
Native Token | ETH | ETH |
Canonical Bridge Security Model | Ethereum Consensus | Ethereum Consensus |
EVM-COMPATIBLE ZK-ROLLUP COMPARISON
Scroll vs Polygon zkEVM: Performance & Cost Benchmarks
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and ecosystem metrics for two leading EVM-equivalent zkRollups.
| Metric | Scroll | Polygon zkEVM |
|---|---|---|
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~15-20 min | ~1-2 hours |
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | ~200 | ~45 |
EVM Opcode Compatibility | ||
Native Bridge to Ethereum | ||
Native Account Abstraction Support | ||
Mainnet Launch Date | Oct 2023 | Mar 2023 |
pros-cons-a
SCROLL VS POLYGON ZKEVM
Scroll: Advantages and Trade-offs
A data-driven comparison of two leading zkEVM contenders. Evaluate their core technical and ecosystem differentiators for your deployment strategy.
01
Scroll's Key Advantage: EVM Equivalence
Bytecode-level compatibility: Scroll's zkEVM executes standard Ethereum bytecode natively, minimizing the need for custom compilers or tooling adjustments. This matters for teams migrating complex, existing dApps (e.g., multi-contract DeFi protocols) who require zero code rewrites and want to leverage the entire Hardhat/Foundry development stack without modification.
~100%
EVM Opcode Support
02
Scroll's Key Trade-off: Centralized Sequencing
Sequencer control: Scroll currently operates a centralized sequencer for transaction ordering. This matters for protocols prioritizing decentralization and censorship resistance at the base layer. While plans for decentralization exist, Polygon zkEVM's use of a decentralized PoS sequencer committee offers a more battle-tested, credibly neutral alternative today.
1
Active Sequencer
03
Polygon zkEVM's Key Advantage: Mature Ecosystem Integration
Deep Polygon stack integration: Seamlessly connects to Polygon's $5B+ DeFi TVL, shared liquidity via native bridges, and tools like Polygon CDK. This matters for projects seeking immediate user and capital reach, leveraging established infra like Chainlink oracles and The Graph indexers already deployed at scale on the network.
$5B+
Connected TVL
04
Polygon zkEVM's Key Trade-off: EVM Compatibility Friction
Language-level equivalence: While highly compatible, some EVM opcodes (e.g., BLOCKHASH) behave differently, and custom compilers were initially required. This matters for developers who prioritize absolute fidelity to Ethereum mainnet behavior and want to avoid any edge-case debugging related to virtual machine differences.
99%+
EVM Compatibility
pros-cons-b
Scroll vs Polygon zkEVM: EVM Match
Polygon zkEVM: Advantages and Trade-offs
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two leading zkEVM contenders.
01
Polygon zkEVM: Superior Ecosystem & Tooling
Deep Polygon Integration: Leverages the Polygon CDK and a mature ecosystem of 50,000+ dApps. Native access to AggLayer for unified liquidity. This matters for projects prioritizing existing user bases and developer familiarity with Polygon's toolchain (e.g., Alchemy, The Graph).
50K+
dApps
$1B+
TVL
03
Scroll: Bytecode-Level EVM Equivalence
Highest Compatibility: Scroll's zkEVM executes Ethereum bytecode directly, ensuring near-perfect compatibility with existing tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and complex smart contracts (e.g., Uniswap V3). This matters for protocols migrating from Ethereum Mainnet with minimal refactoring.
~100%
Opcode Coverage
05
Trade-off: Polygon's Centralized Sequencer
Current Centralization Risk: Polygon zkEVM uses a single, centralized sequencer operated by the Polygon team, creating a potential single point of failure. This is a trade-off for speed and simplicity but a consideration for projects needing maximal liveness guarantees.
06
Trade-off: Scroll's Nascent Ecosystem
Smaller Network Effects: With a younger mainnet and lower TVL (~$200M), Scroll's dApp ecosystem and integrated tooling are less mature. This is a trade-off for pioneering projects that prioritize technical purity over immediate user access.
~$200M
TVL
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Scroll for DeFi
Verdict: The strategic choice for native Ethereum alignment and long-term security. Strengths: Scroll's bytecode-level EVM equivalence ensures seamless deployment of complex protocols like Uniswap V4, Aave, and Compound with minimal adaptation. Its direct integration with Ethereum's security model via a decentralized prover network (Scroll Prover Network) is a critical advantage for high-value applications. Native ETH as the gas token simplifies user experience and capital efficiency. Trade-offs: Transaction fees, while low, are typically higher than Polygon zkEVM's. The ecosystem, though growing rapidly with projects like Ambient Finance and SyncSwap, has a smaller current TVL compared to Polygon's mature DeFi landscape.
Polygon zkEVM for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for cost-sensitive scaling and immediate ecosystem leverage. Strengths: Leverages Polygon's massive existing DeFi TVL and user base, with bridges to major protocols like Aave V3, Uniswap V3, and Balancer. Its aggressive fee subsidies and lower base costs make it ideal for high-frequency trading and yield farming strategies. The shared liquidity and brand recognition of the Polygon PoS chain provide a significant bootstrap advantage. Trade-offs: Uses a custom gas token (MATIC), adding a friction point. Its EVM compatibility is at the opcode level, which can lead to subtle differences in edge-case contract behavior compared to mainnet.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on when to deploy on Scroll versus Polygon zkEVM for your EVM-native application.
Scroll excels at EVM equivalence and developer experience because of its bytecode-level compatibility and commitment to the Ethereum R&D ecosystem. This results in a seamless migration path for existing dApps, with minimal code changes required. For example, its integration with tools like Hardhat and Foundry is virtually frictionless, and its mainnet has demonstrated consistent ~90% lower transaction fees compared to Ethereum L1, making it a cost-effective choice for high-frequency, low-value interactions.
Polygon zkEVM takes a different approach by prioritizing ecosystem integration and performance through its AggLayer vision and established Polygon CDK. This strategy results in superior interoperability and shared liquidity across a growing network of chains, but with a slightly higher degree of protocol-level divergence from Ethereum (e.g., custom precompiles). Its mainnet has achieved higher Total Value Locked (TVL) and daily transaction volumes, indicating stronger initial market traction and user adoption for DeFi protocols.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing security through Ethereum alignment and minimizing migration friction, choose Scroll. It is the definitive choice for protocols like lending markets (e.g., Aave, Compound forks) or complex DAO tooling that require absolute bytecode fidelity. If you prioritize rapid user acquisition, cross-chain liquidity, and leveraging an existing mega-ecosystem, choose Polygon zkEVM. It is better suited for consumer dApps, gaming ecosystems, and projects planning to be part of a broader Polygon-powered superchain network.
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