Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
ZKsync Era is usually the lower-friction choice for teams bringing existing Solidity or Vyper contracts and EVM-oriented tools; Starknet is the more natural fit for teams ready to build in Cairo. Neither is a universal winner. For institutions, the decision also depends on the exact deployment’s data availability, bridge and upgrade controls, operating model, and performance on the institution’s own workload—areas where the reviewed sources do not establish a current, apples-to-apples winner.
At a glance
| Name | Best for | Key spec | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| ZKsync Era | Teams seeking continuity with Solidity, Vyper, and EVM-oriented tools | EraVM supports EVM bytecode through an interpreter; the documentation describes Solidity and Vyper contracts as deployable with minimal or no changes | November 2026 |
| Starknet | Teams prepared to build natively with Cairo and Starknet’s execution model | Uses Cairo and the Starknet VM; it does not natively support EVM | November 2026 |
Which should developers choose: ZKsync Era or Starknet?
For an existing EVM application, start by evaluating ZKsync Era because it is designed to accommodate EVM bytecode and familiar Ethereum development tools. Choose Starknet when the team is willing to adopt Cairo and assess its contracts and tooling as a distinct development environment—not as a direct Solidity deployment target.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Recommended Free Tools
That is a starting point, not a migration guarantee. The relevant question is whether your specific contracts, dependencies, operational practices, and business requirements fit the target network. A team building from scratch may have different priorities from one porting a mature application with audited contracts and established deployment automation.
It also helps to separate the network decision from the application decision. A chain’s architecture can make a particular development approach possible, but it does not establish that your application’s integrations, liquidity, user experience, or operating requirements are already covered. The right choice is the one that passes a concrete technical and operational evaluation for the product you intend to run.
Popular on Amazon
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
What is the practical difference for a Solidity or Vyper team?
The primary difference is migration effort. ZKsync Era’s documentation says EraVM can execute standard EVM bytecode through an EVM Bytecode Interpreter and describes existing Solidity or Vyper contracts as deployable with minimal or no changes. Starknet’s FAQ says it does not natively support EVM: Starknet contracts use Cairo and run in the Starknet VM. See the ZKsync Era overview and Starknet FAQ.
For an EVM-heavy team, compatibility can make Era easier to evaluate as a migration path. But “minimal or no changes” is a documented general capability, not a promise that every contract or dependency will work unchanged. Compiler behavior, contract assumptions, integrations, deployment scripts, and security review still need attention.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Starknet requires a more explicit language and execution-model decision. A team adopting it should account for learning Cairo, adapting contracts, and setting up the Cairo-native development workflow. That may add work for a team whose existing experience and codebase are centered on Solidity; it is not, by itself, evidence that Starknet is a worse choice for a team developing natively.
What does EVM compatibility mean in practice?
EVM bytecode support gives an existing team a path to test familiar contracts and tools, but it should not be mistaken for a guarantee of identical behavior in every environment. A Solidity project is more than its source files: it includes compiler choices, libraries, deployment scripts, external services, tests, monitoring, and assumptions embedded in operating procedures. Each part can affect the effort and risk of moving an application.
Start with a representative slice of the application rather than assuming the whole codebase will move in one pass. Select contracts that exercise the project’s important dependencies and interactions. Compile and deploy them through the intended workflow, run existing tests where possible, and record any changes to code or configuration. Then identify tests that need to be rewritten or added because the target environment changes an assumption the original test did not cover.
For a Cairo migration, treat the language change as a design and staffing decision as well as a porting task. Estimate who will review Cairo code, how the team will maintain its testing and deployment process, and whether its libraries and operational practices meet the project’s needs. The relevant comparison is not simply “familiar versus unfamiliar”; it is the full cost of maintaining secure, auditable software in the chosen environment.
How do the developer toolchains compare?
ZKsync’s documentation lists Hardhat, Foundry, and Remix among the familiar Ethereum tools available to Era developers, as well as a direct EraVM compilation path. Starknet uses a Cairo-native stack, so developers should verify the current compiler, testing, deployment, and debugging tools in Starknet’s official documentation before committing to a project.
Do not judge toolchain fit only by whether a framework name appears in documentation. Check whether your team can run its actual workflow end to end: compilation, local testing, continuous integration, deployment, monitoring, upgrades, and incident response. Also assess library availability, observability, hiring needs, and the support burden for maintaining the application over time.
Also popular on Amazon
For a migration, run a contract-by-contract compatibility review before choosing based on assumed portability. Record which contracts and dependencies compile, which need changes, what must be retested, and how the migration affects audit scope. A familiar tool can reduce friction without making the application’s security review optional.
A useful pilot should produce evidence the team can act on, not just a successful demo. For each representative contract, note the compiler and tool versions, build outcome, test coverage, required changes, and any dependency that lacks a clear path. Include the deployment and monitoring steps a production release would require. The pilot’s output can then become a migration estimate, a list of unresolved risks, and a basis for deciding whether to proceed, revise the architecture, or choose a different target.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →How do the proof systems and rollup models differ?
Both networks use validity proofs, but the proof label alone does not settle which is safer, cheaper, or faster for a particular workload. ZKsync Era’s documentation describes transactions being executed off-chain, grouped into batches, and proved with validity proofs submitted to Ethereum. Starknet uses STARK validity proofs. Ethereum.org’s explanation of ZK rollups describes rollups as publishing state data to Ethereum; the exact data availability and recovery design should still be checked for the deployment you plan to use.
A 2024 peer-reviewed comparison recorded zkSync Era as “Boojum + PLONK-KZG” and Starknet as “STARK + FRI.” That is a publication-era snapshot, not a live specification or performance comparison. Do not treat it as proof that the same implementations are still in use or that one network will perform better today. The paper is useful for understanding that proof-system choices can differ, while current implementation details should be confirmed in current technical documentation. See the AFT 2024 comparison and Ethereum.org’s overview of ZK rollups.
For developers and institutional reviewers, examine the full arrangement rather than inferring security from “rollup” or “validity proof.” Determine what data is made available, how users can recover or withdraw if normal operations are disrupted, which bridge contracts and trust assumptions apply, who can upgrade or pause components, and how incidents are handled. A general description of a network’s architecture is not a deployment-specific security assessment.
The proof answers a limited but important question about computational integrity; it does not answer every question a security reviewer may have about data access, governance, bridge behavior, or operating continuity. These dimensions belong in separate review items. For example, ask where the relevant state data can be obtained, what users need to do if a sequencer or other service is unavailable, and which entity or process can change a critical component. The answers may depend on the particular deployment and version, so verify them for the arrangement you will actually use.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsDo zero-knowledge proofs make Starknet transactions private?
No. Starknet’s FAQ distinguishes a validity proof—which provides assurance about computational integrity—from privacy in the sense of hiding transaction information. It says Starknet transaction payloads are currently visible to the network, as they are on Ethereum. Do not assume that ordinary transactions are confidential merely because a network uses STARK proofs; see the Starknet FAQ.
This distinction matters for applications handling sensitive business information. A proof technology should not be treated as a substitute for a confidentiality design. If a product needs hidden transaction details or restricted data access, make that a separate requirement and verify whether the application’s design provides it. Neither a validity proof nor the general term “zero knowledge” is enough to establish that ordinary transaction payloads are private.
Also popular on Amazon
How should institutions compare operational controls and decentralization?
Institutions should compare the controls of the exact network and deployment they intend to use, not rely on a general label or roadmap. The ZKsync Era overview identifies sequencer, prover, and Ethereum verifier roles, but the reviewed sources do not establish a complete, current decentralization score that can be fairly compared with Starknet.
Starknet’s decentralization roadmap describes a phased journey that includes distributed sequencing and, in later phases, expanded validator responsibilities. Its roadmap labels Phase 3 as current and Phase 4 as in progress. Those are roadmap status statements, not a guarantee that every listed capability is deployed or that every application uses the same operational setup. Confirm the current roadmap, deployed protocol version, and live operating controls during diligence. See the Starknet decentralization roadmap.
A practical institutional review should identify the relevant operators and their responsibilities; examine sequencing, proving, upgrade, and pause powers; assess censorship resistance and withdrawal or escape mechanisms; and document governance and incident procedures. Include business continuity, access to infrastructure, auditability, and legal or compliance requirements in the decision. The reviewed sources do not establish a regulatory suitability determination for either network.
Turn those topics into questions with named owners and evidence requirements. Who operates the sequencer and prover for the deployment? What can an operator or administrator change, and under what conditions? How are upgrades communicated and reviewed? What is the documented path for users to recover assets or exit if ordinary services are interrupted? Who is responsible for incident coordination, and what information will be available to the institution during an incident? A checklist that records answers, supporting documentation, and unresolved items is more useful than a generic decentralization label.
Also distinguish controls that belong to a public network from controls that belong to an application, bridge, or custom chain. A network-wide roadmap cannot establish the permissions or recovery procedures of every project built on it. Review the contracts and operating arrangements relevant to the intended deployment, and make clear which risks are handled by the network and which remain with the application or institution.
What do their multi-chain strategies mean for a project?
ZKsync describes the Elastic Network as interconnected ZKsync chains with shared proofs and trustless bridging, while retaining independent execution environments. Its documentation says new ZKsync chains use ZKsync OS, while Era continues to run EraVM. That distinction matters: a statement about the broader ZKsync network should not be read as a guarantee that another chain has Era’s compatibility or operating characteristics. Review the ZKsync Chains documentation alongside the Era overview.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteStarknet’s roadmap also describes the SN Stack as making components available for teams building custom chains. A custom chain is not the same thing as a change to the public Starknet network’s decentralization or operating model. For either ecosystem, separate architecture and ecosystem direction from capabilities actually deployed for your intended application. Shared proofs, bridge designs, and chain-building components do not establish an application’s liquidity, integrations, performance, or user experience on their own.
For a project considering more than one chain, ask which properties it expects to share and which remain independent. Shared proofs or bridging architecture describe a network strategy; they do not automatically tell you how a specific application moves assets, where users can access its services, or how a failure on one chain affects another. Verify the actual chain, bridge route, and operational responsibilities relevant to your use case rather than extrapolating from the ecosystem design.
Also popular on Amazon
Is there a clear winner for fees, speed, or institutional adoption?
The reviewed sources do not establish a current, comparable winner for fees, throughput, latency, uptime, or institutional adoption. Without comparable measurements and a defined workload, claims that one is faster, cheaper, more reliable, or more widely adopted would go beyond this evidence.
If those factors determine the decision, benchmark both networks using the same representative workload and time window. Agree in advance on what counts as a transaction, how fees are calculated, and which confirmation and finality milestones matter. Measure throughput, latency, uptime, and bridge behavior under the conditions relevant to your application. Keep workloads and measurement windows consistent, and report the method and limitations alongside any results.
The purpose is not to produce a single headline number at all costs. An institution may care more about predictable operating costs, recovery behavior, or a particular transaction’s end-to-end confirmation path than about a general throughput figure. A developer team may prioritize repeatable test and deployment workflows. Let the requirements drive the benchmark rather than treating an isolated figure as a universal ranking.
Make the comparison reproducible. Use the same transaction patterns and load profile, state the observation window, and define whether latency ends at initial confirmation or a later finality milestone. Track the fees actually relevant to the application and describe how they were calculated. If bridge behavior is important, measure that path separately rather than mixing it into a general transaction figure. Record interruptions and failed attempts as well as successful operations; otherwise the results may hide the conditions that matter most to a production system.
Finally, treat benchmark results as conditional evidence, not as permanent network rankings. Results can depend on workload, time period, and the particular deployment being tested. Preserve the setup and measurement method so the team can repeat the evaluation when the application changes or when network documentation and operating arrangements change.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What should you check before selecting a network?
Use a decision record that separates proven requirements from assumptions and roadmap expectations. For a developer team, start with the code and workflow; for an institution, add operating controls and deployment-specific security review.
- Define the use case. List the application’s required transactions, integrations, user flows, data needs, business continuity expectations, and constraints. Avoid choosing on a general-purpose ranking if the real requirement is specific.
- Inventory the existing stack. Record contract languages, compiler versions, libraries, deployment scripts, testing tools, monitoring, and operational dependencies. Decide which elements must remain compatible and which can be changed.
- Validate the migration path. For ZKsync Era, test the specific Solidity or Vyper contracts and dependencies against the intended EraVM workflow. For Starknet, plan the Cairo migration and review the current Cairo-native tools and workflows. In either case, include security review and retesting in the plan.
- Review data availability and recovery. Establish what data is available, where it is published, and what users or operators can do if normal network services fail. Review bridge assumptions and withdrawal or escape paths for the precise deployment.
- Map operational authority. Document sequencer, prover, verifier, validator, governance, upgrade, and pause responsibilities where applicable. Ask who can act, under what conditions, and how actions and incidents are communicated.
- Separate public-network and custom-chain decisions. If considering a broader ZKsync network or a Starknet custom chain, verify which features are deployed and relevant to that chain. Do not infer a particular chain’s controls from ecosystem plans.
- Benchmark representative work. If fees or performance matter, run comparable workloads and define the measurement method, time period, and finality milestones before comparing results.
- Recheck time-sensitive evidence. Confirm current documentation, roadmap status, deployed versions, and operating arrangements before making a production decision. Roadmap statements and older proof-system comparisons can become stale.
For each item, write down the source of the answer and whether it is a verified current property, an assumption, or a future expectation. This makes gaps visible before a production commitment and helps technical, security, operations, and compliance reviewers work from the same decision record. If an important question remains unanswered, treat it as an open diligence item rather than silently filling it with an assumption.
How should teams make the final decision?
Use ZKsync Era as the initial candidate when preserving an EVM-oriented codebase and workflow is a major priority, then validate compatibility rather than assuming it. Consider Starknet when the project is ready to build with Cairo and its distinct virtual machine. For institutions, either option still requires a deployment-specific review of data availability, bridges, upgrade authority, operators, recovery, and workload performance.
Also popular on Amazon
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
The reviewed evidence supports this conditional choice, not a blanket ranking. It does not supply comparable current fee, speed, uptime, adoption, or institutional customer figures; use current, workload-specific evidence for those questions rather than extrapolating from architectural descriptions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does EVM compatibility mean a contract can move without an audit?
No. Even where bytecode or source-level compatibility reduces code changes, a migration can alter compiler behavior, dependencies, integrations, and assumptions about execution. Treat the target deployment as a new security context and have the migrated application reviewed.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Can an institution treat a roadmap milestone as an operating control?
Not without verifying that the milestone is deployed and applies to the specific network version in use. Roadmaps describe intended or phased development; diligence should confirm current operator roles, permissions, and procedures directly.
Are the 2024 proof-system labels a reliable way to predict current network costs?
No. They document a comparison at the time of publication, not current prover implementations or live transaction economics. Cost decisions require current documentation and measurements using the workload and conditions relevant to the application.
Does the Elastic Network description guarantee an app can move assets across every ZKsync chain seamlessly?
No. The architecture describes a network direction and shared-proof and bridging design, but an application’s actual integrations, liquidity, and user experience depend on the particular chains and deployment. Verify the bridge path and operational details relevant to the intended use.
Does Starknet natively run Solidity contracts?
No. Starknet’s FAQ says it does not natively support EVM. Its contracts use Cairo and run in the Starknet VM, so a Solidity team should plan for a distinct migration and toolchain rather than assuming a drop-in deployment.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: ZKsync Era is the more natural first evaluation for teams prioritizing continuity with Solidity, Vyper, and familiar EVM tools. Starknet is a serious option for teams choosing Cairo and Starknet’s distinct execution environment. Institutions should not choose on proof labels or roadmap claims alone: verify the exact deployment’s data availability, bridge and upgrade controls, recovery arrangements, and performance under a representative workload.
