Starknet excels at high-throughput, complex on-chain applications due to its STARK-based recursive proofs and Cairo VM. For example, its architecture has demonstrated the potential for thousands of transactions per second (TPS) in controlled environments, making it a powerhouse for DeFi protocols like Ekubo and gaming worlds like Realms that require dense, frequent state updates.
LABS
Comparisons
Starknet vs zkSync Era: Peak TPS
A data-driven comparison of Starknet and zkSync Era focusing on peak transaction throughput, architectural trade-offs, and practical implications for high-performance dApp deployment.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A data-driven comparison of Starknet and zkSync Era's peak transaction throughput capabilities.
zkSync Era takes a different approach by prioritizing developer accessibility and EVM compatibility via its zkEVM. This results in a trade-off where peak TPS, while still high, is often benchmarked lower than Starknet's theoretical maximum, but it allows for a smoother migration of existing Solidity-based dApps like Uniswap and Curve, leveraging a mature ecosystem.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing raw throughput for novel, compute-heavy applications and you can build in Cairo, choose Starknet. If you prioritize rapid deployment of EVM-native dApps with strong composability and are willing to accept a different performance profile, choose zkSync Era.
tldr-summary
Starknet vs zkSync Era: Peak TPS
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A direct comparison of the theoretical and practical transaction throughput capabilities of Starknet and zkSync Era, focusing on architectural decisions and real-world performance.
01
Starknet: Cairo VM & Parallel Execution
Architectural advantage: Uses a custom Cairo VM designed for STARK proofs, enabling parallel transaction execution. This matters for high-frequency DeFi and gaming applications where non-conflicting transactions can be processed simultaneously, maximizing hardware utilization.
~100-300 TPS
Sustained Mainnet
02
zkSync Era: EVM Compatibility Focus
Ecosystem advantage: Prioritizes bytecode-level EVM compatibility via LLVM compilation. This matters for rapid dApp migration from Ethereum (e.g., Uniswap, Curve) with minimal code changes, trading some raw throughput optimization for developer familiarity and security.
~50-150 TPS
Sustained Mainnet
03
Starknet's Bottleneck: Prover Capacity
Key constraint: Peak TPS is gated by prover network capacity, not the sequencer. Generating STARK proofs for large batches is computationally intensive. This matters for teams planning mass-scale consumer apps; scaling requires a robust, decentralized prover market.
04
zkSync Era's Bottleneck: State Growth
Key constraint: Throughput is limited by state growth and storage proof costs in the EVM circuit. More complex operations (e.g., heavy storage writes) reduce effective TPS. This matters for data-intensive applications like fully on-chain games or social graphs.
STARKNET VS ZKSYNC ERA: PEAK TPS
Performance Specifications & Benchmarks
Direct comparison of key performance metrics and infrastructure specifications.
| Metric | Starknet | zkSync Era |
|---|---|---|
Theoretical Peak TPS | ~3,000 | ~200,000 |
Proven Real-World TPS | ~100 | ~200 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (Simple Swap) | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.01 - $0.05 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~12 hours | ~1 hour |
Proving System | STARK | SNARK (Boojum) |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | ||
Programming Language | Cairo | Solidity/Vyper/Zinc |
PEAK TPS AND OPERATIONAL EXPENSE
Starknet vs zkSync Era: Throughput & Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of key performance and cost metrics for Starknet and zkSync Era, focusing on throughput, transaction costs, and finality.
| Metric | Starknet | zkSync Era |
|---|---|---|
Peak Theoretical TPS | ~4,500 | ~3,000 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.12 - $0.30 | $0.05 - $0.15 |
Avg. Transaction Cost (Complex Swap) | $0.50 - $1.20 | $0.20 - $0.60 |
Time to Finality | ~12 hours | ~1 hour |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
zkEVM Compatibility | Cairo VM | zkEVM (LLVM) |
Data Availability Layer | Ethereum L1 | Ethereum L1 |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS FOR HIGH TPS
Starknet vs zkSync Era: Peak TPS
A data-driven breakdown of Starknet's Cairo VM and zkSync Era's zkEVM for applications demanding maximum throughput. Trade-offs center on theoretical limits, real-world bottlenecks, and developer experience.
01
Starknet: Superior Theoretical Throughput
Cairo VM Architecture: Starknet's custom virtual machine is designed for efficient STARK proofs, enabling a higher ceiling for transactions per second (TPS). Benchmarks and stress tests have demonstrated sustained TPS in the hundreds under optimal conditions, with a theoretical limit significantly higher than EVM-based ZK-Rollups. This matters for mass-market consumer dApps like gaming or social platforms where user actions are frequent and low-cost.
Hundreds+
Sustained TPS
02
Starknet: Sequencer Bottlenecks
Centralized Sequencer Dependency: Current peak TPS is gated by a single, centralized sequencer operated by StarkWare. While decentralized sequencers (e.g., Madara) are in development, today's performance is subject to this bottleneck and potential single points of failure. This matters for protocols requiring guaranteed, decentralized finality and those building for a future where sequencer decentralization is non-negotiable.
03
zkSync Era: EVM-Equivalent Performance
zkEVM Bytecode Compatibility: zkSync Era's LLVM-based compiler achieves near-perfect EVM opcode compatibility, allowing high-throughput execution of existing Solidity/Vyper contracts with minimal changes. Its architecture has demonstrated real-world TPS consistently above 50-100 during network surges, making it a reliable choice for DeFi protocols migrating from Ethereum Mainnet who prioritize familiarity and security over absolute peak throughput.
50-100+
Real-World TPS
04
zkSync Era: Higher Cost at Scale
Proving Cost vs. Throughput Trade-off: As TPS increases, the computational cost of generating ZK proofs for the larger, more complex zkEVM state grows significantly. This can lead to higher operational costs for sequencers, which may be passed on as higher fees during peak demand compared to STARK-based systems at similar scales. This matters for ultra-high-frequency trading (HFT) dApps where marginal fee differences at scale impact profitability.
pros-cons-b
Starknet vs zkSync Era: Peak TPS
zkSync Era: Pros and Cons for High TPS
A data-driven breakdown of throughput capabilities and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating high-performance L2s.
01
Starknet: Superior Theoretical Peak
Architectural advantage: Starknet's Cairo VM and STARK proofs enable a higher theoretical TPS ceiling, with benchmarks exceeding 4,500 TPS in controlled environments. This matters for protocols anticipating hyper-scalability needs, like perpetual DEXs (dYdX) or massive NFT drops.
4,500+ TPS
Theoretical Peak
02
Starknet: Sequencer Bottleneck
Current limitation: Real-world TPS is constrained by a single, centralized sequencer, causing network congestion. While the roadmap includes decentralization (e.g., Madara), today's sustained TPS often lags behind theoretical claims. This matters for teams needing predictable, high throughput now.
03
zkSync Era: Consistent Real-World Throughput
Proven performance: zkSync Era's zkEVM architecture delivers a more consistent 100-200 TPS in production, with reliable block times. This matters for high-frequency DeFi applications (SyncSwap, Maverick Protocol) that prioritize stability and low latency over untapped peak potential.
100-200 TPS
Sustained Production
04
zkSync Era: Lower TPS Ceiling
Inherent trade-off: The focus on EVM compatibility and faster proof generation (via Boojum) caps the maximum theoretical TPS below Starknet's. This matters for protocols designing for mass adoption scenarios (e.g., fully on-chain gaming) where ultimate scale is the non-negotiable priority.
PEAK TPS IN CONTEXT
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Starknet for DeFi
Verdict: The established choice for complex, high-value applications. Strengths: Cairo's native account abstraction enables superior UX (gas sponsorship, batched transactions). The mature ecosystem with protocols like Ekubo (AMM) and Nostra (lending) provides deep liquidity and composability. Starknet's sequential execution model offers predictable performance under load, crucial for arbitrage and liquidations. Considerations: Historically higher fees during congestion, though recent fee market updates (EIP-4844 data blobs) have significantly reduced costs. The Cairo language has a steeper learning curve.
zkSync Era for DeFi
Verdict: Optimized for high-throughput, cost-sensitive DeFi primitives. Strengths: Native support for the EVM and Solidity/Vyper lowers migration barriers for established projects like SyncSwap and Maverick Protocol. Its hyperchains vision allows for dedicated app-chains. The zkPorter data availability option promises ultra-low fees for certain transactions. Considerations: Account abstraction is an add-on, not native. The ecosystem, while large, is newer than Starknet's core DeFi suite. Peak TPS can be more variable with different transaction types.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide infrastructure decisions between Starknet and zkSync Era based on peak TPS and architectural trade-offs.
Starknet excels at achieving high theoretical peak TPS through its STARK-based recursive proof system, which allows for massive transaction batching. Its Cairo VM is designed for computational scalability, enabling complex dApps like dYdX's perpetuals exchange to process thousands of transactions per second in a single batch. The network's architecture prioritizes raw proving power, which is evident in its ability to handle computationally intensive operations efficiently.
zkSync Era takes a different approach by optimizing for developer experience and composability via its zkEVM compatibility, which prioritizes a familiar EVM environment. This focus on compatibility can introduce overhead, but its Boojum upgrade significantly boosted performance. Real-world metrics show zkSync Era consistently processing high volumes of low-complexity transactions, making it a leader for high-throughput DeFi and NFT applications where EVM tooling is critical.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing raw throughput for complex, custom logic (e.g., on-chain gaming, advanced DeFi derivatives), Starknet's Cairo VM and STARK proofs provide a superior foundation. If you prioritize high-volume, EVM-native transactions with superior developer tooling and faster time-to-market (e.g., token swaps, NFT mints), zkSync Era's zkEVM and established ecosystem are the decisive factors. Your choice hinges on whether ultimate scalability for custom logic or seamless EVM compatibility drives your protocol's requirements.
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