EVM Chains (e.g., Ethereum L2s, Polygon, Arbitrum) excel at developer accessibility and capital efficiency. The EVM's dominance, with over $60B in Total Value Locked (TVL) across its ecosystem, provides an immediate pool of battle-tested tooling (Foundry, Hardhat), established standards (ERC-20, ERC-4626), and a vast talent pool. Deploying your AVS here means instant composability with giants like Aave, Uniswap, and Lido, reducing bootstrap time and friction for users and integrators.
LABS
Comparisons
AVS on an EVM Chain vs. AVS on a Non-EVM Chain (e.g., SVM, Move)
A technical and strategic analysis for CTOs and protocol architects comparing the developer ecosystem and liquidity of EVM chains against the performance and architectural benefits of non-EVM runtimes like Solana Virtual Machine or Move for deploying Actively Validated Services.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The AVS Deployment Dilemma
Choosing a foundational chain for your Actively Validated Service (AVS) is a critical architectural decision that dictates your developer experience, security model, and long-term ecosystem reach.
Non-EVM Chains (e.g., Solana SVM, Sui/Aptos Move) take a different approach by prioritizing raw performance and novel state models. Solana's parallel execution via Sealevel can achieve 50k+ TPS for optimized applications, while Move's resource-oriented programming offers built-in security guarantees against reentrancy and overflow bugs. This results in a trade-off: you gain performance and potentially stronger safety at the protocol level, but sacrifice the mature EVM toolchain and must build within a smaller, though growing, ecosystem of native protocols like Jupiter and Raydium.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid development, deep liquidity access, and maximum ecosystem composability, choose an EVM chain. Your AVS will be built on familiar ground with a shorter path to integration. If you prioritize ultra-low latency, high-throughput state transitions, or require a novel asset model that the EVM cannot easily express, choose a non-EVM chain like SVM or Move. Be prepared to invest more in custom tooling and await the maturation of its native DeFi stack.
tldr-summary
EVM vs. Non-EVM AVS Deployment
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs for deploying an Actively Validated Service (AVS) on EVM-compatible chains versus alternative ecosystems like Solana (SVM) or Aptos/Sui (Move).
02
Choose EVM for Interoperability & Composability
Native cross-chain liquidity and messaging: Seamless integration with a $600B+ DeFi TVL ecosystem via standards like ERC-20 and bridging protocols (Wormhole, LayerZero). This matters if your AVS needs to interact with protocols like Aave, Uniswap, or MakerDAO across Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Base, Optimism).
$600B+
EVM DeFi TVL
03
Choose Non-EVM (SVM) for Ultra-Low Cost & High Throughput
Sub-cent transaction fees and high TPS: Solana's Sealevel VM (SVM) consistently processes 2,000-5,000 TPS with fees under $0.001. This matters for AVSs requiring high-frequency operations, like real-time gaming states, order book DEXs, or high-volume social feeds.
< $0.001
Avg. Tx Cost
2k-5k
Sustained TPS
AVS ON EVM CHAIN VS. AVS ON NON-EVM CHAIN
Head-to-Head Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key technical and ecosystem metrics for building an Actively Validated Service.
| Metric | AVS on EVM Chain (e.g., Ethereum, Arbitrum) | AVS on Non-EVM Chain (e.g., Solana, Sui, Aptos) |
|---|---|---|
EVM Tooling & Dev Familiarity | ||
Avg. State Access Cost (Gas) | $0.10 - $2.00 | < $0.001 |
Peak Theoretical TPS | ~10,000 (L2) | 50,000+ |
Time to Finality | ~12 sec (L2) - 15 min (L1) | < 1 sec |
Native Account Abstraction Support | ||
Total Value Locked (Ecosystem) | $50B+ | $5B+ |
Smart Contract Language | Solidity/Vyper | Rust (SVM), Move (Aptos/Sui) |
pros-cons-a
ARCHITECTURE DECISION
EVM Chain for AVS: Pros and Cons
Choosing the foundational chain for an Actively Validated Service (AVS) is a critical infrastructure decision. This comparison evaluates the trade-offs between leveraging the dominant Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) ecosystem versus building on a non-EVM chain like Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) or Move-based networks (Sui, Aptos).
05
EVM: Mature Security & Auditing Landscape
Proven security model: EVM's gas metering and extensive audit history from firms like OpenZeppelin and Trail of Bits provide a predictable security surface. This matters for AVSs where a single bug could lead to catastrophic slashing of billions in restaked assets, demanding conservative, time-tested environments.
06
Non-EVM: Architectural Innovation & Customization
Freedom from legacy constraints: Chains like Solana (parallel execution) and Celestia (data availability-focused) offer clean-slate designs optimized for specific AVS needs (e.g., parallelized fraud proofs, cheap data posting). This matters for AVSs pushing scalability limits or requiring novel consensus mechanisms not possible within EVM's sequential execution model.
pros-cons-b
Contender A Pros
Non-EVM Chain (SVM/Move) for AVS: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance.
01
EVM: Unmatched Developer & Tooling Network
Massive ecosystem leverage: Access to 90%+ of Web3 developers, battle-tested tools like Foundry/Hardhat, and standards like ERC-4337. This matters for rapid AVS deployment and hiring. - Example: EigenLayer's AVS ecosystem is built on EVM, leveraging its security and composability.
02
EVM: Superior Capital & Liquidity Access
Direct access to deep liquidity pools: EVM chains (Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism) hold over $50B in DeFi TVL. This matters for AVSs that require native staking, restaking, or liquidity for slashing insurance. - Example: An AVS for oracle services can tap into Lido's $30B+ stETH pool for cryptoeconomic security.
03
SVM/Move: Performance & Cost Efficiency
Architectural advantages for high-throughput AVSs: Parallel execution (Solana SVM) and resource-oriented programming (Aptos/Sui Move) enable 10k+ TPS and sub-cent fees. This matters for AVSs processing high-frequency data or managing millions of micro-stakes. - Example: A decentralized sequencer AVS benefits from SVM's parallel transaction processing.
04
SVM/Move: Security & Formal Verification
Built-in safety for critical infrastructure: Move's resource model prevents double-spending by design, and its bytecode verifier enables formal verification. This matters for AVSs managing high-value slashing conditions or cross-chain bridge security. - Example: A bridge attestation AVS on a Move chain can have mathematically proven asset safety.
05
EVM: Fragmented Liquidity & High Base Layer Cost
Cons: Deploying on L2s fragments security and liquidity; Ethereum L1 gas costs are prohibitive for frequent state updates. This is a problem for AVSs requiring low-latency, cheap operations across a unified state. - Trade-off: You gain ecosystem at the cost of base-layer performance and operational expense.
06
SVM/Move: Nascent Ecosystem & Tooling Gaps
Cons: Smaller developer pool (<10% of EVM), immature auditing frameworks, and missing critical middleware (e.g., robust oracle networks, insurance protocols). This is a problem for AVSs that need production-grade, battle-tested components from day one. - Trade-off: You gain performance at the cost of ecosystem maturity and developer velocity.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
AVS on an EVM Chain for DeFi
Verdict: The default choice for composability and liquidity. Strengths:
- Battle-Tested Tooling: Seamless integration with MetaMask, Hardhat, Foundry, and established oracles like Chainlink.
- Deep Liquidity: Access to the largest TVL pools on Ethereum L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base) and established DeFi primitives (Uniswap, Aave, Compound).
- Developer Familiarity: Solidity and the EVM toolchain dominate DeFi, ensuring a large talent pool and extensive audit history. Key Trade-off: You inherit the base layer's security model and potential congestion costs.
AVS on a Non-EVM Chain (e.g., SVM) for DeFi
Verdict: High-performance contender for novel, high-frequency applications. Strengths:
- Sub-Second Finality & High TPS: Solana's parallel execution enables order-book DEXs (e.g., Phoenix) and high-frequency trading strategies impossible on serial EVM chains.
- Extremely Low Fees: Predictable, sub-cent transaction costs enable micro-transactions and remove fee volatility as a product risk.
- Native Cross-Program Composability: Programs can call each other within a single transaction, enabling complex atomic operations. Key Trade-off: Requires learning a new paradigm (Rust, Sealevel runtime) and faces a smaller, though growing, DeFi ecosystem relative to EVM.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between EVM and non-EVM chains for your AVS is a foundational decision that balances developer velocity against architectural optimization.
AVS on an EVM Chain excels at immediate developer adoption and capital efficiency because of its deep, mature ecosystem. For example, deploying on Ethereum L2s like Arbitrum or Optimism provides access to over $20B in TVL, battle-tested tooling (Foundry, Hardhat), and a massive pool of Solidity developers. This path minimizes time-to-market and leverages existing security models like EigenLayer's restaking, which has secured over $15B in assets primarily on EVM chains.
AVS on a Non-EVM Chain (e.g., Solana SVM, Sui/Aptos Move) takes a different approach by prioritizing raw performance and novel state models. This results in a trade-off: you gain superior throughput (Solana's 50k+ TPS vs. Ethereum's ~15 TPS) and lower fixed costs, but face a steeper learning curve, a smaller but growing tooling ecosystem (Anchor for SVM, Move Prover for security), and a nascent restaking security landscape that lacks the depth of Ethereum's.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment, maximal economic security, and tapping into the largest DeFi liquidity pools, choose an EVM chain. If you prioritize ultra-low-latency execution, high-frequency state updates, or require a parallel execution model that your AVS logic can uniquely exploit, a non-EVM chain like Solana or a Move-based chain is the strategic bet. The decision ultimately hinges on whether ecosystem leverage or architectural fit is your primary constraint.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
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