zkSync Era excels at delivering consistently high and stable transaction throughput for mainstream EVM applications. Its use of the zkEVM architecture prioritizes compatibility with the Ethereum toolchain, enabling developers to deploy with minimal changes. This focus on developer experience has driven significant adoption, with the network regularly processing 30-50 TPS and handling surges from popular dApps like SyncSwap and Maverick Protocol.
LABS
Comparisons
zkSync Era vs Starknet: TPS
A technical comparison of throughput performance between zkSync Era and Starknet, analyzing real TPS, transaction costs, finality, and ecosystem readiness for enterprise-scale applications.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The ZK Rollup Throughput Race
A data-driven comparison of zkSync Era and Starknet, focusing on their divergent approaches to achieving high throughput.
Starknet takes a different approach by building on Cairo, a purpose-built language for STARK proofs. This allows for more efficient proof generation and theoretically higher scalability ceilings. However, this comes with the trade-off of a steeper learning curve and a less mature ecosystem. While its peak TPS can be higher in controlled benchmarks, real-world usage often sees lower consistent throughput as the ecosystem matures around projects like JediSwap and Nostra.
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate developer velocity and predictable performance for EVM-native applications, choose zkSync Era. If you prioritize long-term scalability potential and are willing to invest in a non-EVM stack for maximal proof efficiency, choose Starknet.
tldr-summary
zkSync Era vs Starknet: TPS
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
Raw TPS numbers are misleading. The real comparison is in architectural trade-offs that determine sustainable throughput for your dApp.
01
zkSync Era: Higher Measured TPS
Specific advantage: Consistently reports higher on-chain TPS (e.g., 100-200+ TPS peaks). This is due to its zkEVM architecture which batches transactions in a single proof, optimizing for Ethereum's gas costs. This matters for high-frequency, low-value transactions like DEX swaps or NFT mints where user cost is paramount.
200+
Peak TPS
02
zkSync Era: Faster Finality for Users
Specific advantage: ~10 minute finality on L1 after proof submission. This is faster than Starknet's typical 3-4 hour window, leading to a better UX for users waiting for full security. This matters for applications requiring quicker L1 settlement assurance, like cross-bridge operations or high-value institutional transfers.
~10 min
L1 Finality
03
Starknet: Higher Theoretical Throughput
Specific advantage: Cairo VM and STARK proofs enable massive computational scaling. The bottleneck is Ethereum data availability, not proof generation. This matters for complex, state-heavy dApps like on-chain gaming, order-book DEXs, or complex DeFi primitives where computation, not just simple transfers, is the constraint.
~1k+
Theoretical TPS
04
Starknet: Parallel Execution & Lower L1 Costs
Specific advantage: Sequencer-level parallel execution (Pathfinder) and highly efficient STARK proofs lead to lower cost per complex transaction at scale. This matters for protocols with complex logic where the cost of computation dominates, and for long-term scaling as transaction volume grows exponentially.
~90%
Cheaper L1 Cost (vs zkEVM)
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zkSync Era vs Starknet: TPS & Performance
Direct comparison of throughput, costs, and finality for Layer 2 scaling solutions.
| Metric | zkSync Era | Starknet |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | 20,000+ | 10,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | < $0.01 | $0.10 - $0.50 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~15 minutes | ~3-4 hours |
Proof System | zk-SNARKs (ZK Rollup) | zk-STARKs (ZK Rollup) |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | ||
Mainnet Launch Date | Mar 2023 | Nov 2021 |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zkSync Era vs Starknet: TPS & Cost Analysis
Direct comparison of throughput, cost, and operational metrics for two leading ZK-Rollups.
| Metric | zkSync Era | Starknet |
|---|---|---|
Peak TPS (Theoretical) | 2,000+ | 1,000+ |
Avg. Transaction Cost (ETH Transfer) | $0.10 - $0.20 | $0.50 - $1.50 |
Time to Finality (L1 Inclusion) | ~15 minutes | ~12 hours |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Proving System | zk-SNARKs (ZKsync) | zk-STARKs (Cairo) |
Mainnet Launch | March 2023 | November 2021 |
EVM Bytecode Compatibility |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
zkSync Era vs Starknet: TPS
A data-driven comparison of transaction throughput, highlighting the architectural trade-offs that define performance for each ZK-Rollup.
01
zkSync Era: Higher Peak TPS
Specific advantage: Demonstrated peak of 300+ TPS on mainnet, with theoretical capacity up to 2,000 TPS. This is achieved via its zkEVM architecture, which prioritizes Ethereum compatibility and faster finality for users.
This matters for high-frequency consumer dApps like gaming or NFT minting where user experience depends on low latency and quick transaction confirmation.
300+
Peak TPS
~15 min
Finality Time
02
zkSync Era: Trade-off in Proof Generation
Specific limitation: Its zkEVM approach, while more developer-friendly, generates larger cryptographic proofs. This can create a bottleneck for the prover network, potentially limiting sustained throughput during extreme, continuous load compared to custom VMs.
This matters for protocols requiring guaranteed, rock-solid throughput 24/7, as prover capacity must scale with demand.
03
Starknet: Superior Theoretical & Sustained TPS
Specific advantage: Architecture built on Cairo VM and STARK proofs is optimized for computational efficiency, enabling a theoretical ceiling of ~10,000 TPS. Its proof system handles complex computations more efficiently, allowing for higher sustained throughput under load.
This matters for compute-intensive DeFi protocols and autonomous worlds where the complexity of state transitions is high and throughput cannot bottleneck.
~10k
Theoretical TPS
~3-5 hours
Finality Time
04
Starknet: Trade-off in Finality Latency
Specific limitation: The trade-off for high computational throughput is longer proving time. While transactions are near-instant for users, full Ethereum finality (including proof generation and verification) can take several hours, creating a longer window for potential challenges.
This matters for bridges and exchanges that require full L1 finality for large-value settlements, as they must manage longer withdrawal delays.
pros-cons-b
zkSync Era vs Starknet: TPS
Starknet: Pros and Cons
Comparing transaction throughput for two leading ZK-Rollups. Starknet's unique architecture offers different trade-offs in scalability, cost, and finality.
01
Starknet: Higher Theoretical Peak TPS
Architectural advantage: Starknet uses STARK proofs, which are more computationally efficient for complex operations, enabling higher theoretical scalability. Cairo VM is optimized for parallel proof generation. This matters for high-throughput DeFi protocols and mass-adoption gaming where batch efficiency is critical.
~100-300 TPS
Current Network Capacity
02
Starknet: Superior Long-Term Scalability Curve
Future-proof design: Starknet's use of recursive proofs (proofs of proofs) allows for near-linear scaling with network growth. The roadmap includes parallel provers and SHARP (Shared Prover) to aggregate work from multiple apps. This matters for protocols planning multi-year scaling who need a solution that won't hit a TPS ceiling.
03
zkSync Era: Lower & More Predictable User Fees
Cost efficiency: zkSync Era's use of zk-SNARKs (particularly Boojum upgrade) and Ethereum-calldata for data availability currently results in lower and more stable transaction fees for users. This matters for consumer dApps and high-frequency traders where cost predictability is a primary concern.
< $0.10
Typical Swap Cost
04
zkSync Era: Faster Time-to-Finality (TTF)
Faster user experience: zkSync Era batches are proven and finalized on Ethereum L1 in minutes, compared to Starknet's longer proof generation time. This leads to quicker economic finality for users. This matters for exchanges, payment apps, and NFT marketplaces where users expect near-instant settlement.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
zkSync Era for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for established DeFi protocols seeking deep liquidity and composability. Strengths:
- Higher TVL & Adoption: Dominant market share with over $700M TVL. Seamless integration with major protocols like Uniswap, MakerDAO, and Curve.
- EVM Compatibility: Near-perfect Solidity/Vyper support via zkEVM, enabling rapid deployment of existing battle-tested contracts with minimal refactoring.
- Proven Security: Inherits Ethereum's security via validity proofs, with a mature mainnet and established audit track record. Consideration: Transaction fees, while low, can be higher than Starknet's for complex operations.
Starknet for DeFi
Verdict: The frontier for novel, high-throughput DeFi applications where ultra-low cost is non-negotiable. Strengths:
- Lower Fee Potential: Cairo VM's efficiency can lead to significantly cheaper complex computations (e.g., perps, exotic options).
- High Theoretical TPS: STARK proofs offer superior scalability, crucial for order-book DEXs or high-frequency strategies.
- Innovative Primitives: Native account abstraction and a growing ecosystem of Cairo-native apps (e.g., Ekubo, Nostra). Consideration: Ecosystem is newer, with less liquidity and a steeper learning curve due to Cairo.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven conclusion on which L2 offers the superior TPS profile for your specific application needs.
zkSync Era excels at delivering a consistently high and predictable transaction throughput for mainstream DeFi and NFT applications because of its zkRollup architecture with a single, centralized sequencer. For example, it has demonstrated sustained TPS in the 100-200 range for token transfers and swaps, with a theoretical peak exceeding 2,000 TPS. This makes it a reliable, high-performance environment for protocols like Uniswap, 1inch, and SyncSwap that require smooth user experience during peak demand.
Starknet takes a different approach by prioritizing a decentralized, permissionless sequencer model and a more expressive, native smart contract language (Cairo). This results in a trade-off: while its proven capacity is immense (demonstrating over 300 TPS in stress tests), real-world, sustained TPS for complex dApp logic is currently lower, often in the tens of TPS. Its strength lies in its architectural foundations for long-term scalability and its suitability for computationally intensive, novel applications like StarkEx-powered dYdX and Sorare.
The key trade-off: If your priority is immediate, high-volume throughput for established EVM-like dApps with predictable performance, choose zkSync Era. If you prioritize future-proof decentralization, maximal computational scalability, and are building a novel, non-EVM application that can tolerate current network maturation, choose Starknet. For CTOs with a $500K+ budget, the decision hinges on whether you need battle-tested performance today (zkSync Era) or are investing in the most scalable architecture for the next 5 years (Starknet).
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