This guide will highlight the Best Scroll Competitors for zkEVM Rollup Networks rollup space, comparing them on the factors that matter most to developers and users. In addition to popularity, I will consider EVM compatibility, ZK technology, scaling architecture, fees, data availability, performance.
The comparison further emphasizes the unique features of each network relative to Scroll, providing an understanding of what alternative solutions to Ethereum Layer-2 scaling and ZK infrastructure are available.
Why Look for Scroll Competitors?
Lower transaction fees: Developers and users might look into Scroll alternatives with cheaper transaction costs, especially for applications with many transactions, where Ethereum gas costs can really impact how easy it is to use.
Higher Performance: Some competing rollups focus on higher throughput, faster confirmations, or more efficient execution, which might be appropriate for applications that require higher transaction capacity and responsive user experiences.
Different ZK Technologies: Competitors in the ZK-rollup space employ different proving systems and architectures. This comparison of technologies allows developers to better understand the differences in efficiency, scalability and infrastructure requirements in proof generation and verification.
EVM Compatibility: Different alternatives provide different levels of EVM compatibility. Developers may see how easily existing Ethereum smart contract, Solidity applications, libraries and development tools are able to migrate across networks.
Data Availability Options: Rollups have different approaches to data availability and how transaction data is published. By comparing the models, projects can estimate how they will affect costs, scalability, decentralization and network architecture.
Developer Ecosystem: The competitors have different developer tools, grants, infrastructure, applications, liquidity and community support. By analyzing these elements, projects can find ecosystems that match their developmental needs.
Different Scaling Architectures: Scroll alternatives can use different sequencing, execution, settlement and proving architectures. ## How to select the right scroll alternative?
EVM Compatibility: Verify that the network supports Ethereum smart contract support, Solidity and popular developer tools. More compatibility will make migration, deployment, testing and maintenance easier for existing Ethereum applications.
ZK Technology: Compare the underlying proving system, proof generation architecture, verification process, and maturity. Choose technology that fits the security needs, scalability goals, and infrastructure capabilities of your application.
Transaction Costs: Analyze existing transaction costs such as execution and data-publication costs. Compare fees under realistic workloads, not just advertized minimum costs or historical network fee figures.
Performance: Compare throughput, confirmation times, finality and execution capacity with recent network data. Performance in high transaction demand and network congestion.
Data Availability: Check where the transaction data is published, and how availability is maintained. The different approaches affect the rollup costs, scalability, decentralization and the overall architecture.
Developer Ecosystem: Look at the SDKs, docs, infrastructure providers, wallets, explorers, apps, grants, and community support available. A mature ecosystem can reduce the friction of development and the requirements for integration.
Network Design: examine models of sequencing, settlement, proof, interoperability and decentralization Choose another one whose architecture meets your application’s needs from a technical point of view, security assumptions and long-term scaling plan.
Developers are able to compare these designs and choose the one to use based on decentralization, scalability, performance and application-specific requirements .
How to Choose the Right Scroll Alternative
EVM Compatibility: Verify that the network supports Ethereum smart contract support, Solidity and popular developer tools. More compatibility will make migration, deployment, testing and maintenance easier for existing Ethereum applications.
ZK Technology: Compare the underlying proving system, proof generation architecture, verification process, and maturity. Choose technology that fits the security needs, scalability goals, and infrastructure capabilities of your application.
Transaction Costs: Analyze existing transaction costs such as execution and data-publication costs. Compare fees under realistic workloads, not just advertized minimum costs or historical network fee figures.
Performance: Compare throughput, confirmation times, finality and execution capacity with recent network data. Performance in high transaction demand and network congestion.
Data Availability: Check where the transaction data is published, and how availability is maintained. The different approaches affect the rollup costs, scalability, decentralization and the overall architecture.
Developer Ecosystem: Look at the SDKs, docs, infrastructure providers, wallets, explorers, apps, grants, and community support available. A mature ecosystem can reduce the friction of development and the requirements for integration.
Network Design: examine models of sequencing, settlement, proof, interoperability and decentralization pick another one that is adapted to the architecture that best suits your application’s tech needs, security assumptions, and long-term scaling plan.
Key Points
1. zkEVM from Polygon
Launch & Technology Launched in 2023, Polygon zkEVM Mainnet Beta is an Ethereum Layer-2 ZK rollup. It leveraged Polygon’s zkEVM technology to produce validity proofs and provided high compatibility with Ethereum, allowing Solidity-based applications and familiar Ethereum tooling to be ported with relatively few modifications. Its architecture used Ethereum for data availability, and settled verified state transitions on Ethereum.
The network was designed to have much cheaper transactions than Ethereum L1 with scaling based on transaction batching and ZK proofs. However, Polygon zkEVM Mainnet Beta has stopped producing blocks as of July 3, 2026, so current live TPS, fees and transaction-performance figures should not be shown as active-network metrics.
Characteristic
- Ethereum compatible ZK rollup architecture
- Validity proofs, zero-knowledge
EVM-compatible execution environment - Settlement and Data availability on Ethereum
Polygon ecosystem interoperability
Pros
- Solid Ethereum compatibility
- Solidity and EVM tooling we know and love
- Transaction validation with ZK
- Optimized for low cost Ethereum scaling
Cons
- Mainnet Beta was sunset on July 3rd, 2026
- Not suitable as an active-network alternative
- Ecosystem migration has sticking points
- No longer representative of current performance indicators
2. zkSync Era
Launch & Technology: zkSync Era is an Ethereum Layer-2 ZK rollup built using the ZKsync stack that launched on mainnet in 2023. It uses EraVM , a ZK-friendly virtual machine for Ethereum-compatible development. Developers are able to write in Solidity, Vyper, Hardhat, Foundry, and Remix, and its EVM Bytecode Interpreter can also run normal EVM bytecode.
zkSync processes transactions off-chain, bundles the state updates, creates validity proofs, and then posts those proofs to Ethereum. Its fees are lower than Ethereum as transaction costs are shared across batches although fees do fluctuate with Ethereum gas and published state data. It adopts a state-difference approach that reduces some data publishing costs and enables scalable execution.
Must Have Features**
- EraVM runtime environment
- Ethereum Layer-2 ZK Rollup
- ZK proofs of validity ethereum settlement
- Built-in support for account abstraction
Pros
- Friendly to strong Ethereum developers
- Cheaper transaction costs than Ethereum L1
- Mature zk-rollup infra
- Supports scalable smart contract applications
Cons
- EraVM is not the same as normal EVM execution
- Complexity of proof generation in infrastructure
- Still costs to be paid in Ethereum
- Some Ethereum applications may need some tweaking
3.Linea
Launch & Technology: Linea is a public zkEVM Layer-2 built on Ethereum by Consensys. Its architecture settles to Ethereum, using zero-knowledge proofs to verify L2 state transitions. Linea is highly compatible with Ethereum, allowing developers to make use of well-known EVM tools and deploy Solidity applications without having to learn a new programming environment.
Linea aims to achieve lower transaction costs and higher throughput compared to Ethereum L1 through the execution of transactions on L2 and the batching of activity for settlement.
Its data and proof architecture lowers the cost of individual transactions by aggregation. Linea also supports popular Ethereum execution clients like Besu, Geth and Erigon, further strengthening its EVM-centric infrastructure.
Main Features**
- zkEVM Ethereum Layer 2
- EVM-equivalent execution
- Zero knowledge proofs (ZKPs)
- Ethereum data availability and settlement
Integration with Consensys ecosystem
Pros
- Great Ethereum compatibility
- Deployment of simple Solidity application
- Familiar Ethereum development tools
- Cheaper transactions than Ethereum L1.
Conc
- Performance depends on Ethereum data costs to some degree
- Building ZK proving infrastructure is hard
- Competition between Ethereum zkEVMs
- Ecosystem adoption still in progress
4. The Taiko
Launch & Technology: Taiko launched its Ethereum mainnet on May 27, 2024, as an Ethereum-equivalent ZK rollup that utilizes a based-rollup architecture. Instead of a traditional centralized sequencer, Taiko employs Ethereum block builders and validators for sequencing. Its original Based Contestable Rollup design integrated contestation with multiple proof systems. ZK and TEE based proving have been added to its architecture.
Taiko uses ETH for gas and writes transaction data to Ethereum using calldata and blobs. Its architecture aims for Ethereum-aligned decentralization with transaction costs that are below L1. Taiko has continued to optimize gas costs and added faster preconfirmation mechanisms. Its current roadmap calls for sub-second preconfirmation latency, and recent upgrades have increased ZK-proof coverage and multi-proof security.
Main Features**
- zk rollup on Ethereum
- Base-rollup architecture
- Native Ethereum sequencing
- ZK and Multi proof architecture
- Availability of data on Ethereum
Pros
- Alignment with Ethereum
- More distributed sequencing approach
- Cheaper L2 execution
- EVM compatible for the developers
Cons
- Proof architecture more complex
- Operational overhead of proof generation
- Smaller ecosystem than major Ethereum L2s
Based sequencing may incur architectural trade-offs
5. Starknet
Launch & Technology: Starknet is an Ethereum Layer-2 validity rollup that uses STARK proofs instead of a more traditional EVM-based ZK architecture. The execution environment of it is based on Cairo, a verifiable computation language. Unlike zkSync, Linea or Scroll, Starknet does not natively support EVM, meaning that Ethereum Solidity applications usually require adaptation, not just deployment.
Fees and Performance: Starknet has concentrated on high throughput execution and low transaction costs. A Starknet roundup of an official report indicated 127 sustained TPS and 857 TPS peak in a measured 2024 period, with the average transaction fee hovering around $0.0028 in that dataset. * Network fees can be paid in ETH, we also support STRK for network fees.
Major Features**
- Ethereum Validity Rollup (EVR)
- Crypto based on STARKs
- Cairo programming language
- STARK friendly running environment
- Settlement in Ethereum
Pros
- ZK architecture with high scalability
- STARK proofs do not require trusted setup
- Cairo is designed for verifiable computation
- Heavy focus on ZK-native apps
Cons
- Not EVM compatible out of the box
- Additional adaptation required for Solidity applications
- Cairo is more difficult for Ethereum developers to learn
- Migration from traditional EVM environments may require development work
6. zkEVM Immutable
Launch & Technology: Immutable zkEVM is a dedicated Ethereum Layer-2 for Web3 gaming. It is built on Polygon CDK and uses zero-knowledge rollup tech while being EVM equivalent. It allows developers to deploy Ethereum-compatible smart contract technology, and the network provides gaming-oriented infrastructure for assets, marketplaces, wallets and on-chain game economies.
Immutable zkEVM operates with IMX as the native gas token and is optimized for low transaction costs and fast confirmations for gaming workloads. It combines Polygon’s ZK tech and Immutable’s gaming ecosystem architecture. Its main differentiation is application specialization not general purpose DeFi. Its EVM compatibility also means developers are able to reuse existing Ethereum development tooling.
Important Highlights
- Ethereum Layer-2 for Gaming
- zkEVM built on Polygon CDK
- EVM compatible
ZK-Rollup design - Infrastructure and ecosystem for gaming
Pros
- Built specifically for blockchain gaming
- Ethereum compatible development environment
- Gaming activity low cost transactions
- Integration with Immutable’s gaming ecosystem
Cons
- Targeted mainly at gaming applications
- Ecosystem exposure concentration is due to Web3 gaming
- More specialized than general purpose L2’s
- Leverages Polygon CDK infrastructure
7. Kroma
Launch & Technology: Kroma was launched as an Ethereum Layer-2 based on the OP Stack and initially operated as an optimistic rollup with ZK fault proofs. Its design was meant to scale as a universal ZK rollup, and its early implementations used Scroll’s zkEVM for ZK fault proofs. Later, Kroma moved its fault-proof system to Succinct’s SP1 zkVM, which changed its proving architecture.
Kroma is aiming to provide low-cost Ethereum scaling, is EVM-equivalent and familiar to developers. Its rollup architecture processes transactions on L2 and settles relevant commitments to Ethereum.
The move to SP1 was to improve proof generation performance and reduce operational complexity via multi-machine proving. Thus, Kroma is better seen as a ZK-focused L2 rather than just another vanilla zkEVM.
Main Features**
- Layer-2 Ethereum
- OP Stack architecture
- EVM-compatibility
- zk-proof technology (zkp)
- Move toward ZK-based proofs
Pros
- Cheaper L2 execution
- Ethereum compatible development
- OP Stack infrastructure you know and love
- ZK proving roadmap enhances validity proof power
Cons
- Smaller ecosystem than leading Ethereum L2s
- Architecture is more mixed than pure zkEVMs
- Demonstrating how architecture has changed over the years
- Less direct comparison with Linea or zkSync Era in the zkEVM space
8. Mantle Network
Launch & Tech: Mantle is an Ethereum Layer-2 with a modular rollup architecture that launched its mainnet in July 2023. Unlike pure zkEVM competitors, Mantle is a optimistic rollup that separates execution from data availability. It has an EVM compatible execution environment and relies on EigenDA for data availability. Ethereum provides the settlement and security layer.
Fees & Performance: Mantle uses MNT as its gas token and aims for lower fees and higher throughput than Ethereum L1. Its modular design moves data availability to EigenDA, helping to lower the cost of publishing large amounts of rollup data directly to Ethereum. Mantle is optimistic, not validity-proof-based, and so is better characterized as a scaling alternative to zkEVM networks, not a direct zkEVM equivalent.
Main Features**
- Ethereum Layer 2
- Optimistic rollup architecture
- Design on a modular scale
Availability of data on EigenDA - EVM-compatible
Pros
- EVM-compatiblity (up to 90% )
- Cheaper transaction fees than Ethereum
- Data availability architecture is modular
- Current ecosystem and infrastructure
Cons
- Not directly comparable with zkEVM networks
- Not a zk-rollup
- Uses optimistic security, not validity-proof security
- Fraud-proof model introduces challenge period
9. ZKFair
Launch & Technology: ZKFair is an Ethereum Layer-2 based on Polygon CDK, a Polygon-based ZK-rollup ecosystem. It is built on ZK-rollup architecture and EVM-compatible infrastructure, allowing Ethereum-style smart contract functionality and tooling. The network also supported EIP-4844 blobs which is a big step toward reducing the data publication cost component of rollup transactions.
ZKFair was built on low-cost transactions, with the Polygon CDK providing its ZK infrastructure. EIP-4844 also reduced the cost of data on rollups with cheaper blobspace on Ethereum.
However, activity and performance today should be verified firsthand before publishing a specific 2026 TPS or fee number, as the current metric available from public sources is not reliable enough to be comparable with major active L2 dashboards.
Features to Know**
- zk rollup of Ethereum Layer-2
- CDK infrastructure for Polygon
- EVM compatible architecture
- Settlement on Ethereum
- Blob support for EIP-4844
Pros
- Support for EVM
- Scaling with ZK
- low cost transaction design
- Advantages of Polygon CDK technoloy
Cons
- Smaller ecology
- Reduced network visibility relative to major zkEVMs
- Current activity is more difficult to benchmark
- Subject to the underlying Polygon ZK infrastructure
10. Lumoz zkEVM
Launch & Technology: Lumoz is not a general purpose zkEVM like Linea or zkSync Era but a zkRollup-as-a-Service and ZK infrastructure platform. Its architecture enables developers to deploy dedicated ZK rollups and choose different settlement layers including Ethereum, BNB Chain, Polygon and Lumoz. It also enables decentralized ZKP computation using its ZK-PoW infrastructure.
Lumoz is focused on reducing the cost of proving by creating a marketplace in which computing providers generate ZK proofs for rollups. Its architecture can support different ZK-rollup configurations, data-availability options and execution environments, rather than enforcing one fixed network design.
Thus, TPS and transaction fees are specific to each Lumoz-powered rollup and any Lumoz zkEVM TPS or fee statistic is a misleading figure if it is presented as a one-size-fits-all. Lumoz documentatio
Main Features**
- Rollup modular deployment
- ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service infrastructure
- Decentralized ZK proof creation
- Various options for settlement layers
- ZK-PoW computing infrastructure *
Pros
- Supports custom ZK rollups
- Facilitates life for rollup developers
- Flexible choices for the settlement layer
- Decentralized proof marketplace
Cons
- No ordinary zkEVM network
- Performance varies by rollup deployed
- First timers might find Architecture complex
- Less generally comparable with Scroll as a general-purpose L2
Comparison Table
| Competitor | Launch Year | Network Type | ZK Technology | EVM Compatibility | Scaling Architecture | Data Availability | Fee Model | Performance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Polygon zkEVM | 2023 | ZK Rollup | Plonky2-based ZK proofs | EVM-equivalent | ZK Rollup | Ethereum | ETH | Sunset in 2026 |
| zkSync Era | 2023 | ZK Rollup | ZK validity proofs | High EVM compatibility | EraVM + ZK Rollup | Ethereum | ETH | High-throughput L2 |
| Linea | 2023 | zkEVM L2 | ZK proofs | EVM-equivalent | zkEVM Rollup | Ethereum | ETH | High-throughput L2 |
| Taiko | 2024 | Based ZK Rollup | ZK proofs + multi-proof approach | Ethereum-equivalent | Based Rollup | Ethereum | ETH | Low-latency scaling |
| Starknet | 2022 | Validity Rollup | STARK proofs | Not natively EVM | Cairo-based ZK execution | Ethereum | ETH / STRK | High scalability |
| Immutable zkEVM | 2024 | Gaming-focused ZK L2 | Polygon CDK ZK proofs | EVM-compatible | ZK Rollup | Ethereum | IMX | Gaming-optimized |
| Kroma | 2023 | Ethereum L2 | ZK fault proofs / ZK proving | EVM-compatible | OP Stack + ZK | Ethereum | ETH | Low-cost L2 |
| Mantle Network | 2023 | Optimistic L2 | Fraud-proof based | EVM-compatible | Modular Optimistic Rollup | EigenDA | MNT | High-throughput L2 |
| ZKFair | 2023 | ZK Rollup | Polygon CDK ZK proofs | EVM-compatible | ZK Rollup | Ethereum | ETH | Low-cost scaling |
| Lumoz zkEVM | 2024 | ZK-RaaS / Rollup Infrastructure | ZK proofs + decentralized proving | Configurable EVM support | Modular ZK Rollups | Configurable | Network-dependent | Rollup-dependent |
Conclusion
Competitors in the scroll space provide alternative paths for scaling Ethereum. EVM-compatible ZK-rollup options are offered by zkSync Era, Linea, Taiko, Immutable zkEVM, and ZKFair. Starknet takes a different path through STARK proofs and Cairo, while Kroma combines OP Stack infrastructure with ZK proving.
Lumoz provides a ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service infrastructure, and Mantle is built on an optimistic modular architecture. With the sunset of Polygon zkEVM in 2026, it’s now history.
When comparing these networks, developers should consider EVM compatibility, ZK technology, fees, performance, data availability, decentralization, and ecosystem maturity. Choosing the right Scroll alternative depends on the technical requirements of the application, the scalability goals, and the development priorities.
FAQ
What are the best Scroll competitors for zkEVM rollup networks?
Major alternatives include zkSync Era, Linea, Taiko, Immutable zkEVM, ZKFair, Starknet, Kroma, Mantle Network, Lumoz, and Polygon zkEVM. However, they use different architectures and are not all direct zkEVM equivalents.
Is zkSync Era a competitor to Scroll?
Yes. zkSync Era is an Ethereum Layer-2 ZK rollup offering EVM-compatible development, ZK validity proofs, and lower-cost execution compared with Ethereum Layer 1.
Is Linea similar to Scroll?
Yes. Linea is an Ethereum zkEVM Layer-2 using zero-knowledge proofs and strong EVM compatibility, making it one of the more directly comparable alternatives to Scroll.
How does Taiko differ from Scroll?
Taiko uses a based-rollup architecture, where Ethereum plays a central role in sequencing. This creates a different approach to decentralization and transaction ordering compared with conventional sequencer-based rollups.
Is Starknet an EVM-compatible alternative to Scroll?
Starknet is a ZK validity rollup, but it is not natively EVM-compatible. It uses STARK proofs and the Cairo programming language, so Ethereum applications may require additional adaptation.
