Starknet's SDK excels at building complex, custom logic through its Cairo language, which is natively designed for zero-knowledge proofs. This results in highly optimized, cost-effective smart contracts for compute-heavy applications like derivatives or on-chain games. For example, Starknet's unique proof system enables lower gas costs for complex operations compared to EVM-equivalent environments, a critical metric for high-frequency dApps.
LABS
Comparisons
zkSync Era SDK vs Starknet SDK
A technical comparison of two leading zk-rollup development kits for building tokenization platforms, focusing on EVM compatibility, smart contract languages, and proving system integration for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for zk-Rollup Development
A technical breakdown of the Starknet and zkSync Era SDKs, the leading frameworks for building on Cairo and zkEVM-based rollups.
zkSync Era's SDK takes a different approach by prioritizing Ethereum compatibility via its zkEVM. This allows developers to deploy existing Solidity/Vyper code with minimal changes, leveraging familiar tools like Hardhat and Foundry. This results in a trade-off: faster time-to-market and a larger initial developer pool, but potentially less fine-tuned performance for novel cryptographic applications compared to a purpose-built VM.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing performance for novel, compute-intensive logic and your team can adopt Cairo, choose Starknet. If you prioritize rapid migration of existing Ethereum dApps and leveraging the broad EVM ecosystem, choose zkSync Era. Your decision hinges on whether developer familiarity or architectural optimization is your primary constraint.
tldr-summary
zkSync Era SDK vs Starknet SDK
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for EVM-native vs Cairo-native development.
01
zkSync Era SDK: EVM Equivalence
Bytecode-level compatibility: Deploy existing Solidity/Vyper contracts with minimal changes. This matters for rapid migration of dApps from Ethereum (e.g., Uniswap, Curve) and leveraging the existing Ethereum toolchain (Hardhat, Foundry, MetaMask).
02
zkSync Era SDK: Lower Gas Fees
Optimized for cost-sensitive users: Leverages zkRollup efficiency for ~1/10th of L1 gas costs. This matters for high-frequency consumer dApps (gaming, social) and protocols requiring micro-transactions where fee predictability is critical.
03
Starknet SDK: Cairo Language Power
Native smart contract language: Cairo is designed for provable computation and complex logic. This matters for novel DeFi primitives (e.g., StarkEx-powered dYdX) and applications requiring custom cryptographic proofs beyond standard token transfers.
04
Starknet SDK: Superior Throughput
Higher theoretical TPS: Starknet's architecture supports higher transaction throughput under load. This matters for order-book DEXs, massive NFT drops, and enterprise-scale applications where network congestion on L2 is a non-starter.
05
zkSync Era SDK: Wallet & Tooling Maturity
Faster user onboarding: Native support for Ethereum signature schemes (ECDSA) and widespread wallet compatibility. This matters for mainstream adoption where users expect MetaMask to 'just work' without managing new signer types.
06
Starknet SDK: Long-Term Scalability Vision
Fractal scaling roadmap: Built for recursive proofs and app-chains (StarkEx, Appchains). This matters for protocols planning their own L3 (e.g., Sorare) and teams betting on a multi-layered, Cairo-native ecosystem.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
zkSync Era SDK vs Starknet SDK: Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key technical metrics and developer features for two leading ZK-Rollup SDKs.
| Metric / Feature | zkSync Era SDK | Starknet SDK |
|---|---|---|
Primary Language Support | Solidity, Vyper, Zinc | Cairo |
Account Abstraction (Native) | ||
Transaction Finality (L1 Conf.) | ~15 minutes | ~3-5 hours |
Avg. L2 Transaction Cost | < $0.01 | < $0.05 |
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | ||
Proving System | zkSync (ZK-SNARK) | StarkEx / Cairo (ZK-STARK) |
Native Token Standard | ERC-20 | ERC-20 & ERC-721 (SRC-5) |
developer-experience
THE ANALYSIS
Developer Experience: Solidity Comfort vs Cairo Power
A deep dive into the foundational SDK philosophies of zkSync Era and Starknet, contrasting Solidity's familiarity with Cairo's performance-first design.
zkSync Era's SDK excels at developer onboarding by prioritizing EVM compatibility. Its zksync-ethers library is a fork of the ubiquitous Ethers.js, meaning developers can deploy existing Solidity smart contracts with minimal code changes. This approach leverages the vast ecosystem of tools like Hardhat, Foundry, and OpenZeppelin, significantly reducing the learning curve. For teams with established Ethereum codebases, this translates to migration times measured in days, not months, allowing them to capitalize on zkSync's lower transaction fees—often 5-10x cheaper than Ethereum L1—immediately.
Starknet's SDK takes a fundamentally different approach by embracing Cairo as a native language designed for provability. While this introduces a learning curve, it unlocks superior performance and expressiveness for complex logic. The starknet.js library and tools like Scarb (Starknet's package manager) are built for this ecosystem. This results in a trade-off: initial development is slower, but applications like dYdX V4 and StarkEx-powered solutions demonstrate Cairo's ability to handle high-throughput derivatives and gaming logic that would be prohibitively expensive in a Solidity-based zkEVM.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment, team familiarity, and leveraging existing Solidity/IPFS tooling, choose zkSync Era. Its SDK is a bridge for Ethereum natives. If you prioritize maximizing L2 performance for novel, compute-intensive applications like on-chain gaming or advanced DeFi primitives, and your team can invest in learning Cairo, choose Starknet. Its SDK is a gateway to its unique architectural advantages.
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
zkSync Era SDK vs Starknet SDK
A data-driven comparison of two leading ZK-Rollup development kits. Use this matrix to choose the right foundation for your dApp's security, cost, and performance needs.
01
zkSync Era SDK: Key Strength
Native Account Abstraction & EVM Compatibility: Built-in AA with paymasters and custom signature schemes. Offers high Solidity compatibility via its zkEVM, reducing migration friction for projects like Uniswap and Curve. This matters for teams prioritizing developer familiarity and user onboarding with gasless transactions.
EVM Compatible
Bytecode Level
02
zkSync Era SDK: Key Strength
Lower Transaction Costs: Typically offers lower L1 data posting fees due to efficient proof recursion and storage compression. This matters for high-frequency, low-value applications like gaming or micro-transactions, where fee predictability is critical.
<$0.01
Avg. Transfer Cost
03
zkSync Era SDK: Key Trade-off
Centralized Sequencing & Proving: Relies on a single sequencer operated by Matter Labs, presenting a theoretical liveness risk. While proofs are decentralized, this architecture differs from Starknet's decentralized prover network. This matters for protocols demanding maximal decentralization guarantees from day one.
04
Starknet SDK: Key Strength
Cairo Language & Provable Security: The Cairo VM is designed for provability, enabling formal verification of complex logic (e.g., perpetuals on dYdX). This matters for DeFi protocols and institutional applications where security audits and mathematical correctness are non-negotiable.
Cairo 1.0+
Native Language
05
Starknet SDK: Key Strength
Decentralized Prover Network: Uses a permissionless network of proof generators (e.g., from Nethermind, Giza), enhancing censorship resistance and liveness. This matters for projects building long-term, credibly neutral infrastructure that must avoid single points of failure.
06
Starknet SDK: Key Trade-off
Higher Learning Curve & Ecosystem Maturity: Requires learning Cairo, with a smaller pool of experienced developers compared to Solidity. While tooling (Scarb, Starkli) is robust, the overall ecosystem (TVL $1.3B) is still catching up to zkSync's ($750M). This matters for teams with aggressive timelines or a Solidity-heavy codebase.
~$1.3B
Starknet TVL
~$750M
zkSync Era TVL
pros-cons-b
zkSync Era SDK vs Starknet SDK
Starknet SDK: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of the leading ZK-Rollup SDKs. Choose based on your protocol's core requirements.
01
zkSync Era SDK: Developer Experience
Familiar EVM Compatibility: Uses Solidity/Vyper with minimal changes, leveraging the LLVM-based zkEVM. This matters for teams migrating existing dApps (e.g., Uniswap, Curve) seeking a fast path to scaling with lower retooling costs.
99%+
EVM Opcode Coverage
02
zkSync Era SDK: Cost & Speed
Lower Initial Costs & Faster Proofs: Native Account Abstraction reduces onboarding friction. Its proof system (Boojum) is optimized for mainstream hardware, enabling faster proof generation times for common operations compared to Cairo's toolchain.
< $0.01
Typical TX Cost
03
Starknet SDK: Performance & Customization
Unmatched Throughput & Flexibility: The Cairo VM is built for ZK from the ground up, enabling complex logic (e.g., perpetuals on dYdX, gaming on Loot Realms) at scale. STARK proofs offer superior computational integrity and post-quantum security.
~90 TPS
Sustained Network Capacity
05
zkSync Era SDK: Trade-Offs
EVM Legacy Constraints: High compatibility can limit ultimate performance ceilings and novel cryptographic primitives. The zkPorter validium data availability layer introduces different security assumptions than pure rollups.
06
Starknet SDK: Trade-Offs
Steeper Learning Curve: Cairo is a new language, requiring teams to invest in retraining. The toolchain (Scarb, Katana) is powerful but less mature than Ethereum's, potentially increasing initial development time for simple dApps.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which SDK
zkSync Era SDK for DeFi
Verdict: The pragmatic choice for mainstream DeFi integration. Strengths:
- EVM Compatibility: Near-perfect Solidity/Vyper support via zkEVM. Easy migration for protocols like Uniswap, Aave, and Curve.
- Lower Gas Fees: ~$0.01 average transaction cost, crucial for high-frequency operations like DEX swaps and yield harvesting.
- Established Ecosystem: Over $800M TVL with mature DeFi primitives (SyncSwap, Maverick, Eralend). Weakness: Finality is slightly slower than Starknet due to proof generation on Ethereum L1.
Starknet SDK for DeFi
Verdict: The innovator's choice for novel, complex financial logic. Strengths:
- Cairo Language: Enables custom, provable logic impossible in Solidity (e.g., advanced risk engines).
- Atomic Composability: Superior for complex, multi-step DeFi transactions within a single L2 block.
- High Throughput: ~100 TPS supports massive liquidation events and MEV strategies. Weakness: Steeper learning curve; requires Cairo development, limiting the pool of existing Solidity talent.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your infrastructure choice between zkSync Era and Starknet.
zkSync Era's SDK excels at developer onboarding and EVM compatibility because of its Solidity/Vyper support and familiar tooling like Hardhat. For example, its 3,500+ TPS on mainnet and $1.1B+ TVL demonstrate strong adoption for general-purpose dApps. The ecosystem benefits from established bridges like LayerZero and native integrations with wallets like MetaMask, reducing integration friction for teams migrating from Ethereum.
Starknet's SDK takes a different approach by prioritizing maximal scalability and sovereignty through its Cairo VM and native account abstraction. This results in a steeper learning curve but enables unique architectural possibilities, such as recursive proofs and complex on-chain logic. Its Cairo 1.0 language and Madara sequencer framework offer unparalleled customizability for protocols needing a tailored, high-throughput environment, as seen in applications like dYdX's order book.
The key trade-off: If your priority is rapid deployment, EVM equivalence, and tapping into a large existing developer pool, choose zkSync Era. Its ecosystem momentum and lower barrier to entry are decisive. If you prioritize ultimate scalability, novel cryptographic app design, and are willing to invest in mastering a new stack for long-term architectural advantages, choose Starknet. Its path to higher theoretical TPS and native account abstraction is built for the next generation of autonomous, complex protocols.
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