Best ZK rollup
4 models · updated 2026-06-25
The verdict
Starknet leads — 1 of 4 models rank Starknet the top pick.
Not unanimous: Claude picks zkSync Era; Gemini picks zkSync Era; Grok picks zkSync Era.
Your vendor missing? Check any brand →
Combined ranking
- 1GPT #1Claude #2Gemini #2Grok #3
Best overall for ZK-native applications: production-proven STARK security, excellent scaling economics, native account abstraction, mature Cairo tooling, and credible progress toward decentralized sequencing; narrowly beats ZKsync Era where EVM portability is not essential
Claude Best-in-class proving stack — STARKs with no trusted setup, quantum-resistant, and the highest proof throughput/efficiency of the majors — plus native account abstraction and a serious decentralization roadmap; the strongest choice when raw ZK performance and cryptographic soundness matter most.
Gemini A non-EVM ZK-rollup using Cairo VM and STARK proofs to deliver extreme computational scalability, native Account Abstraction, and sub-second preconfirmations, making it ideal for compute-heavy dApps like on-chain gaming.
Grok Superior throughput and security via STARK proofs (no trusted setup vulnerabilities), excels in complex/high-volume apps like derivatives, robust Cairo ecosystem for secure scaling, and growing Bitcoin/Eth integration appeal.
Where it falls shortper GPT Cairo and its non-EVM execution model impose meaningful migration and learning costs for Solidity teams
per Claude Runs the Cairo VM, not the EVM, so Solidity teams must rewrite or lean on Kakarot/compatibility layers; steepest learning curve of the group and not for a drop-in EVM migration.
per Gemini Complete lack of EVM compatibility forces developers to learn Cairo and rebuild their entire developer stack from scratch.
per Grok Cairo language learning curve deters some EVM-native developers; not the easiest for rapid prototyping compared to full zkEVMs.
- 2GPT —Claude #1Gemini #1Grok #1
Largest ZK-rollup ecosystem by TVL and app count, battle-tested Boojum prover, native account abstraction, and the ZK Stack/Elastic Chain gives teams a proven path to launch their own ZK chains with shared interop; the safest default for shipping a general-purpose EVM app on validity proofs today.
Gemini Compiler-level Type 4 zkEVM offering native Account Abstraction from day one and high throughput. Its modular ZK Stack allows developers to easily launch custom Hyperchains, making it the top choice for institutional scaling and complex retail dApps.
Grok Leading TVL (often $5B+ range), mature EVM-compatible zkEVM with native Account Abstraction for user-friendly onboarding, strong DeFi/gaming ecosystem, high throughput, and low fees with proven real-world adoption and developer tools as of 2026.
Where it falls shortper Claude Its LLVM-based compiler is not bytecode-equivalent, so some Solidity/EVM edge cases (certain opcodes, gas assumptions, deep tooling) differ — not for teams needing exact EVM-equivalent behavior or a fully decentralized sequencer right now.
per Gemini Lacks bytecode compatibility, requiring developers to compile Solidity through LLVM/Yul, which can lead to deployment compiler friction and tooling incompatibility.
per Grok Not ideal for projects needing maximal EVM equivalence or those avoiding Cairo-like custom elements in early iterations; ecosystem still catching up to optimistic leaders in sheer liquidity depth for some assets.
- 3GPT #3Claude #3Gemini #3Grok #4
The cleanest choice for Ethereum developers prioritizing bytecode-level EVM compatibility, familiar tooling, Ethereum data availability, transparent zkEVM architecture, and comparatively easy contract migration
Claude Bytecode-level EVM equivalence (Type 2), fully open-source, and a genuinely clean drop-in for existing Solidity contracts and tooling with strong engineering credibility; the pick when exact EVM behavior and auditability outrank ecosystem size. Near-tie with #4.
Gemini Type 2 zkEVM offering bytecode-level EVM equivalence and deep alignment with Ethereum's core philosophy. It shares a near-tie with Linea due to equivalent EVM tooling compatibility, but ranks higher for practitioners prioritizing pure Ethereum alignment.
Grok Strong focus on modular zkEVM design with high performance and developer accessibility, competitive fees/finality, and traction in experimental/AI-integrated dApps; reliable validity proofs with growing ecosystem.
Where it falls shortper GPT A centralized sequencer and smaller liquidity and application base reduce resilience and immediate usefulness versus the leaders
per Claude Smaller ecosystem/TVL and higher per-tx proving cost than the leaders, with a still-centralized sequencer — not for teams that need deep existing liquidity or maximal cost efficiency.
per Gemini High proof-generation overhead makes transaction fees higher and finality slower compared to compiler-optimized or non-EVM rollups.
per Grok Lower TVL/ecosystem maturity than top 3, making it less ideal for apps needing maximum liquidity or battle-tested network effects.
- 4GPT #4Claude #5Gemini #4Grok #5
Highly compatible zkEVM development, strong wallet and infrastructure integration, low-friction Solidity deployment, and an increasingly open Lineth stack make it particularly accessible to mainstream Ethereum teams
Gemini Type 2 zkEVM offering deep, out-of-the-box MetaMask integration that provides unmatched retail distribution and onboarding pathways. It shares a near-tie with Scroll but ranks slightly lower due to a stronger orientation toward centralized tooling.
Claude ConsenSys-backed zkEVM with unmatched default distribution via MetaMask/Infura, a rapidly growing app ecosystem, and steadily improving prover performance; strong if wallet-native reach and ecosystem momentum drive your launch.
Grok ConsenSys-backed with solid EVM compatibility, enterprise focus, competitive TVL (~$800M+ historically), and emphasis on easy integration/security for institutional/DeFi builders.
Where it falls shortper GPT Centralized operational control and upgrade authority remain its largest trust trade-off
per Claude More centralized than peers with a later-arriving decentralization/token story and a newer prover — not for teams prioritizing credible neutrality or maximal decentralization today.
per Gemini High reliance on Consensys's centralized infrastructure and MetaMask defaults, leading to platform lock-in and centralization risks.
per Grok Less differentiated in throughput or unique features versus more specialized leaders; can feel more "standard" without standout UX or performance edges.
- 5GPT —Claude #4Gemini —Grok #2
Excellent full EVM compatibility allowing near-zero code changes for Ethereum devs, strong backing from Polygon Labs with mature infrastructure, solid TVL and enterprise/DeFi traction, balancing performance with seamless migration.
Claude EVM-equivalent proving plugged into the AggLayer, giving unified cross-chain liquidity and a large surrounding Polygon ecosystem for distribution and integrations. Near-tie with #3.
Where it falls shortper Claude Adoption trails Polygon's own PoS chain, proving costs and past reliability wobbles are real, and AggLayer's shared-security model is still maturing — not for teams wanting the most proven standalone ZK L2.
per Grok Slightly behind leaders in raw innovation speed or specialized privacy features; more generalist than hyper-optimized for niche high-throughput use cases.
- 6GPT #2Claude —Gemini —Grok —
Strongest practical EVM-oriented package, combining a mature mainnet, low fees, native account abstraction, broad infrastructure support, efficient Boojum proving, and the open-source ZK Stack
Where it falls shortper GPT EraVM differences and remaining operator centralization make it less Ethereum-equivalent and trust-minimized than its positioning can suggest
- 7GPT #5Claude —Gemini #5Grok —
Its based-rollup design inherits Ethereum’s proposer set for sequencing, offering unusually strong censorship resistance and credible EVM equivalence; near-tied with Linea but ranks lower for typical users because its ecosystem and economics are less mature
Gemini Type 1 zkEVM built as a based rollup, outsourcing sequencing to Ethereum Layer 1 validators to inherit L1 liveness, censorship resistance, and decentralization from launch.
Where it falls shortper GPT Based sequencing and proof architecture bring higher costs and operational complexity than more centralized ZK rollups
per Gemini Lacks a dedicated sequencer, meaning transactions are bound by L1 block times and suffer from higher latency and L1 gas congestion.
Rank history
Just missed the top 5
GPT Aztec — exceptional programmable privacy, but its newer and more specialized network is not yet the best general-purpose choice · Zircuit — useful sequencer-level security protections, but less battle-tested and differentiated for ordinary developers than the top five
Claude Taiko — Type 1, fully Ethereum-equivalent based rollup with decentralized sequencing — technically excellent but full equivalence raises proving cost and its TVL/adoption trail the top five · Aztec — true privacy ZK rollup and the most literal "zero-knowledge" play, but niche, privacy-specialized, and less mature as a general-purpose mainnet than the picks above
Gemini Aztec Network — missed because it focuses strictly on programmable privacy and encrypted smart contracts, serving a niche market rather than general-purpose Solidity deployment · zkLink Nova — missed because it operates as an aggregated Layer 3 network focused on multi-rollup liquidity consolidation rather than acting as a standalone Layer 2 scaling solution
Grok Taiko — strong Type-1 zkEVM push but lagged in adoption/TVL
By model
ChatGPT
- 1.Starknet
- 2.ZKsync Era
- 3.Scroll
- 4.Linea
- 5.Taiko
Claude
- 1.zkSync Era
- 2.Starknet
- 3.Scroll
- 4.Polygon zkEVM
- 5.Linea
Gemini
- 1.zkSync Era
- 2.Starknet
- 3.Scroll
- 4.Linea
- 5.Taiko
Grok
- 1.zkSync Era
- 2.Polygon zkEVM
- 3.Starknet
- 4.Scroll
- 5.Linea
This ranking moves
We re-poll all four models continuously. Get one short email when a #1 flips.
Tracked by ModelsAgree · rank 1 = 5 pts … rank 5 = 1 pt · re-polled continuously