Need a quick expert recommendation?
Get a practical recommendation before you spend weeks choosing the wrong blockchain architecture.
Book a Free Strategy CallComplete Comparison
ZK-EVM Type Classification
Vitalik Buterin defined a ZK-EVM type spectrum based on EVM compatibility tradeoffs:
- Type 1 (Ethereum-equivalent): Proves exactly the current Ethereum EVM. Hardest to build; perfectly compatible with all existing tools. Taiko.
- Type 2 (EVM-equivalent): Minor differences from Ethereum but fully Solidity-compatible. Scroll targets this.
- Type 2.5 (EVM-equivalent with gas differences): Polygon zkEVM. Gas costs differ from Ethereum.
- Type 3 (EVM-compatible): Most Solidity works; some precompiles differ. zkSync Era is Type 3 moving toward Type 2.
- Type 4 (Language-compatible): Compiles Solidity to a ZK-friendly virtual machine. StarkNet uses Cairo, not EVM.
Comparison Matrix
| Factor | zkSync Era | Polygon zkEVM | Scroll |
|---|---|---|---|
TVL (2025) | $700M+ | $400M+ | $300M+ |
Proving system | Boojum (PLONK) | Plonky2 | Halo2 |
EVM type | Type 3→2 | Type 2.5 | Type 2 |
Proof generation | ~1 hour | ~30 min | ~15 min |
Native token | ZK | POL | None |
Developer experience | Good, some quirks | Good | Best (closest to Ethereum) |
Unique feature | Paymaster native | Fastest proving | Type 2 compatibility |
Developer Experience Comparison
zkSync Era quirks to know: `block.number` returns L2 block number (not Ethereum's). `block.timestamp` is L1 timestamp (delayed). Some precompiles differ in gas cost. Account abstraction is native (no ERC-4337 needed). The zkSync team provides excellent developer documentation.
Polygon zkEVM: Most compatible with existing Ethereum tooling — Hardhat, Foundry, web3.js all work without modification. The main limitation: not all Ethereum precompiles are implemented yet.
Scroll: Prioritizes Ethereum compatibility above all else. Ethereum developers should feel at home. The tradeoff: slower proof generation than competitors.