Scroll vs Polygon zkEVM: technical comparison and performance

Compatibility and throughput

Scroll maintains bytecode-level EVM equivalence, which means existing tools like Hardhat and MetaMask work without modification. I find the technical trade-off obvious. While Scroll prioritizes bytecode-level equivalence to ensure smart contracts work without modification, Polygon trades some of that purity for speed through its use of a zk-friendly instruction set called zkASM. Polygon zkEVM targets higher throughput using the AggLayer, but the recent delay in Polygon CDK chain supernet interoperability frustrates those awaiting a unified ecosystem. Scroll uses a modified version of ZCash’s Halo2 code to remove the need for a trusted setup. This approach results in high security, though I noticed the early mainnet gas fees were much higher than Ethereum L1. Scroll provides a full proof for all Ethereum opcodes and components of the transaction. It launched its Alpha version on Ethereum’s Goerli Testnet on March 3, 2023, while Polygon launched its Mainnet Beta on March 27, 2023. Scroll’s block time is 3 seconds, whereas Linea’s is 2 seconds. Linea, a Type 2 zkEVM, holds $3.4 billion in TVL as of April 2026, which exceeds Scroll’s $2.1 billion.

Data comparison

I evaluated the performance of both networks using current data. The metrics reveal how each chain handles transaction costs and finality.

Scroll shows a theoretical peak TPS of 200, whereas Polygon zkEVM reaches 45. The TVL for Scroll reached $2.1 billion in April 2026, while Polygon zkEVM maintained a TVL above $130 million. If you need faster settlement, you should look at Scroll’s 15 to 20 minute finality window. Polygon’s finality takes up to 60 minutes. For users, Scroll’s median DEX swap costs $0.27, while Linea stays lower at $0.18 and zkSync Era stays at $0.21. Additionally, a median USDC transfer on zkSync costs $0.05, while Scroll’s is $0.06 and Linea’s is $0.04. You should check the congestion levels before choosing a network. Can the AggLayer solve the throughput gap?

Compliance and Hermez

Hermez 2.0 proof aggregation throughput aims to improve scaling, but the regulatory environment for stablecoins dictates market entry. BitPay secured authorization under the MiCA framework through its Dutch subsidiary. This authorization allows BitPay to offer regulated crypto services across the European Union. As of May 4, 2026, 210 CASPs received authorization across 23 countries. 180 of these firms already passport into other EU member states. The EU separates token issuance from service-provider licensing, which means an E-Money Token issuer and a CASP follow different rules. This distinction matters for businesses that handle both crypto and fiat. Stablecoin transactions account for 3 percent of global cross-border payments. In the United States, providers must register as Money Services Businesses with FinCEN and obtain state-level money transmitter licenses. New York requires a BitLicense and a money transmitter license for virtual currency businesses. In Hong Kong, the VASP regime requires a minimum paid-up share capital of HKD 5 million and HKD 3 million in liquid capital. The UK requires businesses to register with the FCA for AML/CFT supervision, meaning one approval does not cover the full stack. In Singapore, monthly transaction values above SGD 3 million require an MPI license. The UAE provides a clear route through Dubai’s VARA, which licenses payments and remittances as a regulated virtual asset activity.