ZK Stack excels at sovereignty and customizability because it is a modular framework derived from the battle-tested zkSync Era codebase. It allows projects to launch their own dedicated zkRollup (a "Hyperchain") with full control over the sequencer, data availability, and tokenomics, while inheriting security from the shared ZK Stack bridge. For example, a project like Aave or Uniswap could use it to create a high-throughput, app-specific chain without fragmenting liquidity from the main network.
LABS
Comparisons
ZK Stack vs Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit: EVM-Equivalent ZK Frameworks
A technical comparison of two leading bytecode-compatible zkEVM frameworks, analyzing prover efficiency, decentralization roadmaps, data availability integration, and developer experience for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for zkEVM Supremacy
A data-driven comparison of ZK Stack and Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit, two leading frameworks for building custom, EVM-equivalent zkRollups.
Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit takes a different approach by prioritizing bytecode-level EVM equivalence and seamless integration with the existing Ethereum developer toolchain. This results in a trade-off of less sovereignty for superior compatibility; developers can deploy existing Solidity smart contracts with near-zero modifications. Scroll's mainnet, securing over $150M in TVL, validates this approach, offering ~12 TPS with fees significantly lower than Ethereum L1.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum control, customizability, and building a dedicated ecosystem chain, choose ZK Stack. If you prioritize bytecode-level EVM compatibility, minimal dev tool changes, and leveraging Ethereum's security model directly, choose Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit.
tldr-summary
ZK Stack vs Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven comparison of two leading EVM-equivalent ZK-rollup frameworks. Choose based on your team's priorities for sovereignty, performance, and ecosystem integration.
03
ZK Stack: Mature, Multi-Chain Ecosystem
Proven Network Effects: Built by zkSync Era, which secures $700M+ TVL. Access shared liquidity and security via native bridges to Era and other Hyperchains. Ideal for projects seeking immediate user access and cross-chain composability.
$700M+
TVL on zkSync Era
04
Scroll: Focused Developer Experience & Audits
Streamlined Rollup Kit: A more opinionated, integrated framework with fewer moving parts than a full stack. Backed by extensive formal verification and security audits. Best for teams prioritizing a secure, straightforward path to a standalone zkEVM chain.
05
Choose ZK Stack If...
You are building a sovereign app-chain or L3 with custom DA, need deep technical customization, and want to leverage the zkSync ecosystem's liquidity and tooling (e.g., Chainlink CCIP, Gelato).
06
Choose Scroll's Kit If...
Your primary goal is perfect EVM compatibility for a secure L2 rollup, you value a more integrated and audited framework, and your team is experienced with Ethereum's toolchain (Hardhat, Foundry).
ZK STACK VS SCROLL'S ZKEVM ROLLUP KIT
Head-to-Head Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key metrics and architectural features for EVM-equivalent ZK-rollup frameworks.
| Metric | ZK Stack | Scroll's zkEVM Kit |
|---|---|---|
EVM Opcode Coverage | 100% | 100% |
Proving System | Boojum (STARK-based) | Scroll ZK Circuit (Halo2) |
Native Bridge | ||
Sequencer Decentralization | Planned (ZK Stack 2.0) | Centralized (Current) |
Time to Finality (L1) | ~10 min | ~10 min |
Mainnet Launch | 2023 (zkSync Era) | 2023 |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Custom Precompiles |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
ZK Stack vs Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit: Performance & Cost Benchmarks
Direct comparison of EVM-equivalent ZK framework performance, cost, and ecosystem metrics.
| Metric | ZK Stack (zkSync Era) | Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit |
|---|---|---|
EVM Equivalence Level | Bytecode-Level | Bytecode-Level |
Time to Finality (L1) | ~1 hour | ~12 minutes |
Avg. L2 Transaction Cost | $0.10 - $0.30 | $0.05 - $0.15 |
Proving System | Boojum (SNARK/STARK) | Custom zkEVM (Plonky2) |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Mainnet Launch | Mar 2023 | Oct 2023 |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $1.2B+ | $800M+ |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
ZK Stack vs Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit
A side-by-side comparison of two leading EVM-equivalent ZK-Rollup frameworks. Evaluate strengths and trade-offs for protocol deployment.
05
ZK Stack: Higher Complexity & Cost
Steeper operational overhead: Managing a sovereign chain requires expertise in node operation, prover coordination, and data availability. This matters for smaller teams who may find the operational burden and initial capital outlay (for sequencers/provers) prohibitive.
06
Scroll's Kit: Less Customization
Tighter coupling to Scroll's roadmap: As a rollup kit, it offers less sovereignty than a full stack. This matters for projects needing to innovate at the protocol level (e.g., custom precompiles, novel DA solutions) or those wanting to capture maximal MEV/seigniorage.
pros-cons-b
ZK STACK VS. SCROLL KIT
Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of two leading EVM-equivalent ZK frameworks for launching your own L2. Evaluate key trade-offs in developer experience, security, and ecosystem.
01
Scroll's Strength: Battle-Tested EVM Equivalence
Proven bytecode-level compatibility: Scroll's mainnet L2 has processed 100M+ transactions, demonstrating seamless deployment for protocols like Uniswap V3 and Aave. This matters for teams requiring zero code modifications for existing Solidity dApps.
100M+
Mainnet Txns
02
Scroll's Strength: Integrated Prover & Sequencer
Unified, opinionated stack: The Kit bundles a canonical sequencer and a zkEVM prover, reducing initial integration complexity. This matters for teams prioritizing a faster time-to-market over deep, low-level customization of the proving pipeline.
03
ZK Stack Strength: Modular & Customizable Architecture
Hyper-specialized components: Built on the ZK Circuit Language (ZKL) and Boojum prover, it allows swapping sequencers, validators, and data availability layers. This matters for protocols with unique scaling needs (e.g., high-frequency DEXs) or those integrating custom precompiles.
04
ZK Stack Strength: Mature Ecosystem & Tooling
Established developer network: With zkSync Era's $700M+ TVL and tools like Hardhat-ZKsync and Block Explorer, the ecosystem is robust. This matters for teams seeking extensive documentation, SDKs, and auditor familiarity from day one.
$700M+
Era TVL
05
Scroll's Trade-off: Less DA Flexibility
Tighter initial coupling: The Kit's design is optimized for Ethereum L1 data availability. This matters for projects exploring alternative DA layers like Celestia or EigenDA, which may require more foundational work compared to ZK Stack's modular approach.
06
ZK Stack Trade-off: Steeper Learning Curve
Complexity from flexibility: Managing a modular stack with components like the ZK Circuit Language demands deeper expertise in ZK cryptography. This matters for smaller engineering teams who may find Scroll's integrated, EVM-centric approach more manageable.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
ZK Stack for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for sovereign, high-throughput DeFi ecosystems. Strengths: Sovereignty allows custom DA layers (Celestia, EigenDA) and governance, enabling ultra-low, predictable fees crucial for high-frequency trading. Proven Architecture via zkSync Era's $700M+ TVL and battle-tested protocols like SyncSwap and Maverick. Native Account Abstraction (AA) is built-in, simplifying user onboarding. Considerations: Requires more operational overhead for sequencing and data availability management.
Scroll's zkEVM for DeFi
Verdict: Choose for maximum Ethereum compatibility and security. Strengths: Bytecode-Level EVM Equivalence ensures near-flawless compatibility with existing tooling (Hardhat, Foundry) and contracts, minimizing migration risk. Ethereum-Aligned Security with a decentralized sequencer and Ethereum (EIP-4844) for data availability. Strong institutional backing. Considerations: Fees and throughput are more directly tied to Ethereum's base layer congestion.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your strategic choice between two leading EVM-equivalent ZK frameworks.
ZK Stack excels at providing a sovereign, modular foundation for building custom L2/L3 chains because it is built on the battle-tested zkSync Era codebase. For example, its core prover, Boojum, has processed over 200 million transactions on the mainnet, demonstrating production-grade stability. This framework offers maximal flexibility, allowing teams to choose their own data availability layer (e.g., Celestia, EigenDA), sequencer, and governance model, making it ideal for projects like ZKsync Hyperchains that require a tailored, application-specific environment.
Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit takes a different approach by prioritizing bytecode-level EVM equivalence and seamless integration with the existing Ethereum toolchain. This results in a trade-off of less initial configurability for superior developer experience and security inheritence. Scroll's mainnet, which has secured over $150M in TVL, serves as a live reference implementation, providing a clear, audited path for teams that want a rollup that behaves exactly like Ethereum, down to the precompiles and gas metering.
The key trade-off: If your priority is sovereignty and modular design for a bespoke chain with custom economics and data layers, choose ZK Stack. If you prioritize maximal EVM compatibility and security with a faster path to a production rollup that feels like an Ethereum L1, choose Scroll's zkEVM Rollup Kit. For CTOs, the decision hinges on whether your roadmap demands a specialized ecosystem (ZK Stack) or a frictionless extension of Ethereum (Scroll).
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