In the Ethereum ecosystem, there have always been issues such as scalability bottlenecks, high transaction fees, and slow transaction confirmations. To address these problems, Layer-2 solutions (L2) have emerged, with the route of "zero-knowledge proofs (ZK) + EVM compatibility" receiving significant attention.
Among the many ZK Rollup / zkEVM projects, Polygon zkEVM, zkSync, and StarkNet are three core representatives. They each choose different technological trade-offs, design routes, and infrastructure strategies. This article will delve into a comparative analysis from the perspectives of technology, performance, security, developer experience, and ecosystem.
The following two hash tags serve as key guides for this article:
#zkEVM Innovation
#Ethereum Expansion Competition
---
Differences at the technical and infrastructure level
Before understanding the differences between the three, let’s briefly review some key technical backgrounds.
Basic concept of zero-knowledge proofs + Rollup
ZK Rollup: Processes multiple transactions on L2 first, then generates a 'zero-knowledge proof' submitted to the Ethereum mainnet to prove the legality of these transactions without having to replay all the logic. This can significantly reduce the burden on the mainnet.
zkEVM: Refers to a design that aims to make the L2 execution environment as compatible with Ethereum's EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) as possible, including opcode, state tree structure, precompiled contracts, etc., allowing developers to migrate contracts to L2 without extensive rewriting.
In practice, achieving a fully EVM equivalent zkEVM implementation is very difficult and requires trade-offs between provability and efficiency.
Vitalik proposed a classification method for zkEVM in his blog, pointing out that the closer the implementation is to full equivalence, the higher the cost of proof generation, while slightly trimmed versions tend to perform better.
In this context, Polygon zkEVM, zkSync, and StarkNet each take different routes.
---
Polygon zkEVM: Pursues an EVM-equivalent route
Technical choices and positioning
One major selling point of Polygon zkEVM is its strong compatibility with Ethereum, meaning it is designed as an EVM-equivalent zk Rollup. This allows developers to port contracts from Ethereum with almost no (or very few) modifications for deployment. This reduces switching costs.
However, most observers currently believe that the Polygon zkEVM is a version that is 'close to EVM' but still has some trade-offs (classified by Vitalik as the third category, i.e., partially sacrificing equivalence for efficiency).
In terms of asset bridging and transaction submission, Polygon zkEVM has also adopted a design compatible with Ethereum: After trading on L2, the aggregator or sequencer needs to generate proofs submitted to the Ethereum mainnet, while the transaction fees are still paid using ETH (the native token of the Ethereum mainnet) as the gas payment method.
In terms of incentive mechanisms, Polygon uses MATIC as an incentive to motivate aggregators and proof producers.
Advantages and Challenges
Advantages:
1. Low migration costs — For projects with existing Ethereum contracts and ecosystems, the friction of switching to Polygon zkEVM is minimal.
2. Security is guaranteed — Because it is designed to maintain a state representation and execution model consistent with Ethereum as much as possible, it has a higher consistency in security assumptions with Ethereum.
3. Ecosystem support — Polygon itself already has considerable reputation and resources in the Ethereum L2 space, which provides advantages in community collaboration and resource integration.
Challenges:
1. Low adoption rate — According to Nansen's report, the number of users and TVL of Polygon zkEVM lag significantly behind zkSync and StarkNet.
2. High pressure on proof computation costs — Maintaining high equivalence while ensuring proof generation efficiency is a significant technical challenge.
3. Ecosystem development speed — Even with excellent technical design, if there are not enough dApps, users, or capital inflow, overall attractiveness will be limited.
4. Resource and competitive pressure — Competition in the zk space is fierce, requiring continuous innovation and expansion.
According to data from Nansen, Polygon zkEVM lags behind zkSync by several times in bridging funds, indicating that the current crowd enthusiasm and liquidity are not as good as its competitors.
---
zkSync: Trade-off between compatibility and performance
Technical choices and positioning
zkSync is typically referred to as EVM compatible (EVM-compatible), rather than fully equivalent. This means that while developers can still use languages like Solidity to write contracts, there may be different translation or transcoding mechanisms at the internal execution model or state representation level compared to Ethereum.
Due to its architectural design, zkSync is able to achieve a better trade-off between proof generation efficiency and compatibility. This makes the verification time relatively controllable, making it more user and developer-friendly.
Additionally, zkSync has recently made innovations at the consensus level: In 2025, a paper pointed out that zkSync adopted a hybrid BFT protocol called ChonkyBFT, emphasizing achieving a balance between latency and performance.
In terms of account abstraction, flexibility in gas payments, and other aspects, zkSync also has good designs. For example, it supports meta-transactions (users can pay gas with tokens without specifically holding ETH), improving user experience.
Advantages and Challenges
Advantages:
1. Better proof efficiency — Achieving a better trade-off between compatibility and performance, resulting in overall operating costs lower than strict equivalence models.
2. High ecosystem and popularity — According to OnChain data, zkSync's TVL and bridging volume both lead Polygon zkEVM.
3. User-friendly experience — Supports various payment methods, meta-transactions, etc., helping to promote adoption.
4. Security and reliability — Utilizes mature zero-knowledge proof technology and continues to have technical research support.
Challenge:
1. Compatibility trade-off — Since it is not fully equivalent, some contracts may need slight adjustments when migrating to zkSync.
2. Proof bottlenecks still exist — Even with trade-offs, proof generation may still bottleneck in high throughput scenarios.
3. High competitive pressure — Competing fiercely with other zkEVM projects requires continuous investment in the ecosystem, capital, and developers.
Overall, zkSync has become a very strong choice in the current competitive landscape with its trade-off design and popularity advantage.
---
StarkNet: A uniquely independent route
Technical choices and positioning
StarkNet's design philosophy has significant differences from the first two. It adopts the STARK proof system developed by the StarkWare team (not using zk-SNARKs), emphasizing scalability and security.
At the contract language level, StarkNet uses a language called Cairo instead of directly executing EVM native contracts. Developers often need to translate or rewrite Ethereum contract logic into Cairo or use translator tools for support.
Additionally, StarkNet natively supports account abstraction, allowing users to manage accounts through smart contracts without having to rely entirely on traditional private key signing models. This has potential advantages in user experience.
StarkNet tends to favor language-level compatibility in its design, rather than being fully equivalent to EVM. This means there is greater design freedom in contract logic, but the switching costs are also relatively high.
Advantages and Challenges
Advantages:
1. High proof scalability — STARK proofs have significant performance advantages in large-scale computations.
2. Innovation and flexibility — Using the Cairo language and account abstraction design, it provides more flexible contract logic implementation space.
3. Community and technical strength — StarkWare has a strong research background and technical accumulation, which is beneficial for long-term competitiveness.
Challenges:
1. High migration threshold — Migrating contracts from Solidity or EVM to Cairo has certain learning and rewriting costs.
2. Compatibility limitations — Since it is not directly EVM equivalent, some Ethereum tools, libraries, and frameworks may not be directly usable.
3. Ecosystem starting phase — Compared to Ethereum or some EVM-compatible L2s, its dApp ecosystem is still under development.
4. Friction with EVM — For some projects heavily reliant on the EVM/Solidity ecosystem, the differences of StarkNet may be an obstacle.
StarkNet represents a more innovative route with higher switching costs within Ethereum expansion solutions.
---
Comprehensive comparison: Perspectives on technology and infrastructure
Here is a comparative summary of the three in key technical dimensions:
Dimension Polygon zkEVM zkSync StarkNet
EVM level compatibility / equivalence Towards EVM equivalence (but still with trade-offs) EVM compatible / trade-off design Language level compatibility (using Cairo)
Proof system Usually uses zk-SNARK type proofs zk-SNARK type STARK type
Migration cost Lowest Moderate High
Proof efficiency Heavier Trade-off Excellent (in large-scale scenarios)
User experience design Close to Ethereum's operational feel Supports meta-transactions, flexible gas payments Account abstraction, innovative UI potential
Ecosystem and popularity Slightly behind competitors Leading Still in development stage
Long-term potential High High High (deep technology)
From a technical and infrastructure perspective:
If your priority is high compatibility with the Ethereum ecosystem and reducing migration costs, Polygon zkEVM is the safer choice.
If you seek a trade-off between proof efficiency and a better user experience, zkSync is very competitive in the current competitive landscape.
If you are willing to pay the switching costs for future scalability and innovation, StarkNet offers a unique choice.
---
Future Outlook and Challenges
In the coming years, the competition among Polygon zkEVM, zkSync, and StarkNet will become more intense. Here are several directions worth paying attention to:
1. Proof generation optimization: Proof time and cost have always been key bottlenecks in zk routes. If any project can break through in this regard, its competitiveness will be significantly enhanced.
2. Ecosystem building and capital inflow: Having good technology is just the foundation; whether there are users, whether there are dApp deployments, and whether capital enters are really key.
3. Multi-layer architecture and fusion routes: In the future, L3, Rollup combinations, or hybrid solutions may emerge that integrate the advantages of multiple L2s.
4. Tools, frameworks, and developer experience: If the development threshold can be lowered and a one-stop SDK and tool support can be provided, it will attract more developers.
5. Security, decentralization, and governance: The security of the proof system, node decentralization, and decentralized governance mechanisms will be long-term tests.
---
Conclusion
In the 'Ethereum Expansion Competition', Polygon zkEV
M, zkSync, and StarkNet each have their advantages and trade-offs. (Polygon zkEVM) pursues high compatibility and low barriers; zkSync strikes a balance between trade-offs and efficiency; StarkNet represents innovation and long-term potential. In the future, who can break through technically and who can win in the ecosystem,
