Polygon zkEVM excels at achieving high theoretical throughput by leveraging a zkEVM Type 3 architecture, which prioritizes performance by making minimal, pragmatic deviations from the EVM. Its parallel transaction processing capability allows it to handle a significant load, with its mainnet beta demonstrating the ability to process over 100 TPS in stress tests. This performance is backed by Polygon's established infrastructure and aggressive roadmap, including the upcoming Polygon 2.0 vision for a unified ZK-powered L2 ecosystem.
LABS
Comparisons
Polygon zkEVM vs Scroll: TPS
A technical comparison of throughput, transaction costs, and finality between Polygon zkEVM and Scroll. We analyze TPS benchmarks, gas efficiency, and architectural trade-offs to help CTOs and protocol architects select the optimal ZK Rollup for their high-volume applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The ZK Rollup Throughput Race
Comparing the throughput performance and architectural trade-offs between Polygon zkEVM and Scroll.
Scroll takes a different approach by prioritizing bytecode-level equivalence with the EVM, classifying it as a zkEVM Type 2. This design choice maximizes security and developer familiarity, as contracts deploy identically to Ethereum Mainnet. The trade-off is that this rigorous equivalence can introduce computational overhead, potentially capping peak throughput below more optimized Type 3 designs. Scroll's focus is on prover efficiency and seamless integration with existing Ethereum tooling like Hardhat and Foundry, ensuring a frictionless developer experience.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing transaction throughput and leveraging a mature, integrated scaling stack, choose Polygon zkEVM. If you prioritize absolute EVM equivalence, maximal security guarantees, and a developer environment identical to Ethereum, choose Scroll. For high-frequency DeFi protocols like Aave or Uniswap V3 forks, Polygon's TPS advantage may be critical. For protocols requiring bulletproof compatibility, such as complex DAO tooling or direct mainnet forks, Scroll's bytecode-level fidelity is the decisive factor.
tldr-summary
Polygon zkEVM vs Scroll: TPS & Performance
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
Raw TPS numbers are misleading. The real differentiator is how each chain's architecture and ecosystem trade-offs affect real-world throughput and user experience.
01
Polygon zkEVM: Higher Theoretical Peak
Architectural advantage: Leverages Polygon's AggLayer for shared sequencing and unified liquidity. This enables horizontal scaling across multiple zkEVM chains, pushing the network's aggregate TPS potential far beyond a single chain's limit.
This matters for large-scale consumer applications (like gaming or social) that need to burst beyond L1 constraints and plan to deploy app-specific chains.
02
Polygon zkEVM: Mature Prover & Tooling
Ecosystem advantage: Built on the battle-tested Polygon CDK and Plonky2 prover. This maturity translates to faster proof generation times and deeper integration with tools like Alchemy, The Graph, and Chainlink CCIP.
This matters for teams prioritizing developer velocity, reliable infrastructure, and needing robust oracles and data indexing from day one.
03
Scroll: EVM-Equivalence Focus
Design advantage: Prioritizes bytecode-level EVM equivalence, aiming for minimal friction when porting complex, existing Ethereum smart contracts (including precompiles). This can reduce audit overhead and subtle bug risks.
This matters for protocols with intricate, audited Solidity codebases (e.g., advanced DeFi primitives) where maximum compatibility and security assurance are non-negotiable.
04
Scroll: Ethereum-Native Security
Philosophical advantage: Emphasizes tight integration with Ethereum's base layer. Its zkEVM circuit design and decentralized prover network are built for long-term alignment with Ethereum's security and decentralization ethos.
This matters for projects and institutions (e.g., stablecoin issuers, institutional DeFi) whose primary value proposition is inheriting Ethereum's security model with lower costs.
ZK-ROLLUP THROUGHPUT COMPARISON
Polygon zkEVM vs Scroll: TPS & Performance
Direct comparison of throughput, costs, and finality for two leading ZK-Rollup EVM solutions.
| Metric | Polygon zkEVM | Scroll |
|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS | ~2,000 | ~1,000 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | < $0.01 | < $0.02 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~30 min | ~12 min |
Proving System | Plonky2 | zkEVM (Custom) |
EVM Opcode Compatibility | 99%+ | 100% |
Native Bridge to Ethereum | ||
Mainnet Status | Live (Beta) | Live |
ZK-ROLLUP THROUGHPUT COMPARISON
Polygon zkEVM vs Scroll: TPS & Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of transaction throughput, gas efficiency, and economic structure for two leading ZK-rollups.
| Metric | Polygon zkEVM | Scroll |
|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS | ~2,000 | ~1,000 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (L2 Gas) | ~$0.05 - $0.15 | ~$0.10 - $0.25 |
EVM Opcode Gas Cost Parity | ||
Native Token for Gas Fees | ETH | ETH |
Proof Generation Time | < 10 min | < 20 min |
Data Availability Layer | Ethereum | Ethereum |
pros-cons-a
THROUGHPUT PROS AND CONS
Polygon zkEVM vs Scroll: TPS Comparison
A data-driven breakdown of transaction throughput capabilities, highlighting the architectural trade-offs between these leading zkEVMs.
01
Polygon zkEVM: Higher Theoretical Peak
Architectural advantage: Leverages a Sequencer-Prover model with a custom zkASM prover. This enables a theoretical peak of ~2,000 TPS on the L2, with finality on Ethereum L1 in ~30 minutes. This matters for applications needing high batch capacity, like high-frequency NFT minting or gaming events.
~2,000 TPS
Theoretical Peak
~30 min
L1 Finality
02
Polygon zkEVM: Bottleneck on L1 Settlement
Key trade-off: While L2 throughput is high, final settlement speed and cost are gated by Ethereum's data availability (DA). High L1 gas prices directly increase batch submission costs, which can throttle sustained high TPS. This matters for protocols requiring cheap, predictable finality, like high-volume DEX arbitrage.
03
Scroll: Consistent, Predictable Throughput
Design advantage: Uses a Ethereum-native architecture with a focus on bytecode-level EVM equivalence. While peak TPS may be lower, its throughput is highly consistent and less prone to prover bottlenecks. This matters for enterprise applications and DeFi protocols that prioritize reliability and deterministic performance over raw peak speed.
EVM-Equiv.
Architecture Focus
04
Scroll: Prover Performance as a Limiter
Key trade-off: Throughput is constrained by the ZK prover's computational speed. While improving, generating proofs for complex transactions can be slower than Polygon's model, potentially capping TPS under heavy, diverse loads. This matters for dApps with complex smart contract logic (e.g., intricate DeFi options) where proof generation time is critical.
pros-cons-b
Polygon zkEVM vs Scroll
Scroll: Pros and Cons for Throughput
A direct comparison of throughput capabilities, highlighting key architectural decisions and their impact on TPS and scalability.
01
Polygon zkEVM: High Theoretical Peak
Aggregated zk-Proof Efficiency: Leverages a shared prover (Polygon zkEVM) and AggLayer to batch proofs for multiple chains, enabling a theoretical capacity of hundreds of TPS across the ecosystem. This matters for high-volume DApps like perpetual exchanges (e.g., Aave, Uniswap V3) that require consistent, high throughput.
100+
Theoretical TPS
02
Polygon zkEVM: Centralized Sequencing Trade-off
Sequencer Centralization: Currently relies on a single, centralized sequencer operated by Polygon Labs. This creates a bottleneck and a single point of failure, capping realized TPS below theoretical limits. This matters for enterprise applications requiring decentralized security guarantees and predictable performance under adversarial conditions.
03
Scroll: Decentralized Sequencing Advantage
Ethereum-Aligned Decentralization: Scroll's rollup contracts and decentralized sequencer network (in development) inherit Ethereum's security model directly. This provides stronger censorship resistance and liveness guarantees, which matters for protocols prioritizing security over raw speed, such as large-scale DeFi treasuries or institutional settlement layers.
Ethereum L1
Security Base
04
Scroll: Bottleneck on Ethereum Consensus
L1 Finality Dependency: Scroll's TPS is fundamentally constrained by Ethereum's block space and finality time. While fast for an L2, its throughput ceiling is lower than aggregated zk-chains. This matters for mass-consumer applications like fully on-chain games or social networks that demand ultra-low-cost, high-frequency transactions.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Polygon zkEVM for DeFi
Verdict: The established, high-TVL choice for mainstream adoption. Strengths: Superior Total Value Locked (TVL) and deep liquidity from the Polygon PoS ecosystem. Seamless integration with battle-tested tools like Aave, Uniswap V3, and Balancer. Mature developer experience with Hardhat, Foundry, and The Graph. Ideal for protocols prioritizing user base and capital efficiency over absolute minimal cost. Key Metric: Consistently higher TPS under real DeFi load due to established network effects.
Scroll for DeFi
Verdict: The cost-optimized, Ethereum-aligned choice for novel primitives. Strengths: Exceptionally low fees due to efficient zkEVM architecture and bytecode-level compatibility. Strong security pedigree from Ethereum-native research. Gaining traction with native yield protocols and restaking projects. Choose Scroll if your protocol's economics are extremely fee-sensitive or relies on the purest EVM equivalence. Trade-off: Currently lower TVL and fewer blue-chip integrations than Polygon zkEVM.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the TPS trade-offs between Polygon zkEVM and Scroll to guide your infrastructure decision.
Polygon zkEVM excels at delivering high, consistent throughput for mainstream dApps because it leverages a centralized sequencer and a battle-tested architecture derived from the Polygon PoS ecosystem. For example, its current mainnet beta consistently processes 40-50 TPS with peaks observed near 100 TPS, supported by a large validator set and deep liquidity from protocols like Aave and Uniswap V3. This makes it a robust choice for applications requiring predictable performance and immediate user scale.
Scroll takes a different approach by prioritizing maximal decentralization and Ethereum-equivalent security through its native zkEVM design and decentralized rollup sequencing. This results in a trade-off where current mainnet TPS is more conservative, typically in the 10-20 range, as the network prioritizes proving stability and trust minimization over raw throughput. Its strength lies in attracting security-sensitive protocols like Pendle and Ambient Finance, which value its tight integration with Ethereum's consensus layer.
The key trade-off: If your priority is scaling high-volume consumer applications with proven infrastructure and deep liquidity today, choose Polygon zkEVM. Its higher TPS ceiling and mature tooling (like the Polygon CDK) offer a faster path to scale. If you prioritize long-term, credibly neutral infrastructure with Ethereum-level security guarantees for value-centric DeFi or institutional use cases, choose Scroll. Its architectural choices favor security over short-term throughput, making it a strategic bet on decentralization.
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