Understand the key differences between Ethereum, Solana, and Aptos over the lifetime of a transaction

Original article by Kevin, the Researcher at Movemaker

Comparing the technical differences between the Move language, Aptos and other public chains may be boring due to the different depth of observation. General analysis is inevitably scratching the itch, and going deep into the code is easy to see the forest for the trees. To quickly and accurately understand what differentiates Aptos from other public chains, it’s important to choose a suitable anchor.

The author believes that the life cycle of a transaction is the best entry point. By analyzing the complete steps of a transaction from creation to final state update—including creation and initiation, broadcasting, sorting, execution, and state update—we can clearly grasp the design ideas and technical trade-offs of the public chain. Taking this as a benchmark, take a step back and be able to understand the core narratives of different public chains; Take a step further and explore how to build market-appealing apps on Aptos.

As shown below, all blockchain transactions revolve around these five steps, but this article will focus on Aptos, dissect its unique design, and compare the key differences between Ethereum and Solana.

! Understand the main differences between Ethereum, Solana and Aptos in the lifecycle of a transaction

Aptos: Optimistic Parallel & High-Performance Design

Aptos is a public chain with an emphasis on high performance, and its transaction lifecycle is similar to that of Ethereum, but with a significant improvement through unique optimistic parallel execution and mempool optimization. Here are the key steps in the transaction lifecycle on Aptos:

Creation & Initiation

The Aptos network consists of light nodes, full nodes, and validators. The user initiates a transaction through a light node (such as a wallet or application), and the light node forwards the transaction to a nearby full node, which in turn synchronizes to the validator.

Broadcasting

Aptos retains the mempool, but it is not shared between mempools after QuorumStore. Unlike Ethereum, its mempool is more than just a transaction buffer. After transactions enter the mempool, the system pre-sorts them according to rules such as FIFO or gas fees to ensure that transactions are conflict-free when they are executed in parallel at a later time. This design avoids Solana’s high hardware requirement to declare read-write collections in advance.

sorting

Aptos adopts the AptosBFT consensus, proposers cannot freely order transactions in principle, and AIP-68 gives proposers the right to additionally populate delayed transactions. Conflict avoidance has been done in advance for mempool pre-ordering, and block generation relies more on validator collaboration rather than proposer-led.

Execution

Aptos uses Block-STM technology for optimistic parallel execution. Transactions are assumed to be conflict-free and processed at the same time, and if a conflict is found after execution, the affected transaction will be re-executed. This approach leverages multi-core processors for increased efficiency, with TPS up to 160, 000.

Status updates

Validators synchronize state, finality is confirmed by checkpointing, similar to Ethereum’s Epoch mechanism, but more efficient.

The core strength of Aptos is the combination of optimistic parallelism and mempool pre-ordering, which reduces node performance requirements and dramatically increases throughput. As you can see in the diagram below, Aptos’ network architecture clearly supports this design:

! Understand the main differences between Ethereum, Solana and Aptos in the lifecycle of a transaction

Source: Aptos white paper

Ethereum: The benchmark for serial execution

As the pioneer of smart contracts, Ethereum is the origin of public chain technology, and its transaction lifecycle provides a basic framework for understanding Aptos.

Ethereum transaction lifecycle

Create & Initiate: The user initiates a transaction through the wallet through the relay gateway or RPC interface. Broadcast: The transaction goes into the public memory pool and is waiting to be packaged. Sorting:P After the oS upgrade, the block builder packages the transaction according to the principle of profit maximization, and the relay layer bids on it and submits it to the proposer. Execution: The EVM processes transactions serially, updating the state in a single thread. Status Update: The finality of the block needs to be confirmed by two checkpoints.

Ethereum’s serial execution and mempool design limits performance, with a block time of 12 seconds/slot and a low TPS. In contrast, Aptos has made a quantum leap through parallel execution and mempool optimization.

! Understand the main differences between Ethereum, Solana and Aptos in the lifecycle of a transaction in simple terms

Solana: Extreme Optimization for Deterministic Parallelism

Solana is known for its high performance, and its transaction lifecycle differs significantly from Aptos, especially in terms of mempooling and execution.

the Solana transaction lifecycle

Create & Initiate: The user initiates a transaction through the wallet. Broadcast: There is no public mempool, transactions are sent directly to the current and next two proposers. Sorting: The proposer packs the block based on PoH (Proof of History), and the block time is only 400 milliseconds. Execution: The Sealevel virtual machine uses deterministic parallel execution, and read-write collections need to be declared in advance to avoid conflicts. Status Update: BFT consensus quick confirmation.

The reason Solana doesn’t use mempools is that they can be a performance bottleneck. With no mempool and Solana’s unique PoH consensus, nodes are able to quickly reach transaction order consensus, eliminating the need for transactions to be queued in the mempool, and transactions can be filled almost instantaneously. However, this also means that if the network is overloaded, transactions may be dropped instead of waiting and users will need to resubmit.

In contrast, Aptos’ optimistic parallelism does not require the declaration of read/write sets, and the node threshold is lower, but the TPS is higher.

! Understand the main differences between Ethereum, Solana and Aptos in the lifecycle of a transaction in simple terms

Source: Shoal Research

Two paths for parallel execution: Aptos vs Solana

The execution of a transaction represents an update of the block state, and is the process by which the transaction initiation instruction is transformed into a final state. How is this change understood? The node assumes that the transaction is successful and calculates its impact on the state of the network, and this calculation process is executed.

Thus, parallel execution in a blockchain refers to the process by which multiple core processors simultaneously compute the state of the network. In the current market, parallel execution is divided into two ways: deterministic parallel execution and optimistic parallel execution. The difference between the two development directions is rooted in how to ensure that parallel transactions do not conflict – i.e., whether there are dependencies between transactions.

It can be seen that in the transaction lifecycle, the timing of parallel transaction dependency conflicts is determined, which determines the differentiation between deterministic parallel execution and optimistic parallel execution, and Aptos and Solana have chosen different directions:

• Deterministic Parallel (Solana): Before the transaction is broadcast, the read and write collection needs to be declared, and the Sealevel engine processes conflict-free transactions in parallel according to the declaration, and the conflicting transactions are executed serially. The advantage is high efficiency, and the disadvantage is high hardware requirements.
• Optimistic Parallel (Aptos): Assuming that there is no conflict in the transaction, the Block-STM executes the transaction in parallel and verifies it, and retries if there is a conflict. Mempool pre-ordering reduces the risk of collisions and reduces the burden on nodes.

Example: Account A has a balance of 100, transaction 1 to 70 to B, transaction 2 to 50 to C. Solana acknowledges conflicts in advance by declaring them, and handles them sequentially; If the balance is found to be insufficient after Aptos is executed in parallel, it will be readjusted. The flexibility of Aptos makes it more scalable.

Optimistic parallelism uses mempools to acknowledge conflicts in advance

The core idea of optimistic parallelism is the assumption that transactions processed in parallel do not conflict, so the application does not need to submit a transaction statement before the transaction is executed. If a conflict is found during post-transaction validation, Block-STM re-executes the affected transaction to ensure consistency.

However, in practice, if you do not confirm whether the transaction dependencies are conflicting in advance, a large number of errors may occur during the actual execution, resulting in the lag of the public chain. Therefore, optimistic parallelism is not simply assuming that the transaction is conflict-free, but avoiding risks in advance at a certain stage, which is the transaction broadcast stage.

On Aptos, transactions are pre-ordered according to certain rules, such as FIFO and gas fees, after they enter the public mempool, to ensure that transactions within a block do not conflict when executed in parallel. It can be seen that the proposer of Aptos does not actually have the ability to order transactions, and there is no block builder in the network. This pre-ordering of transactions is key to Aptos’ optimistic parallelism. Unlike Solana, which requires transaction declarations, Aptos doesn’t require this mechanism, so the requirements for node performance are significantly reduced. In terms of the network overhead of ensuring that transactions do not conflict, the impact of Aptos joining the mempool on TPS is much smaller than the cost of introducing transaction declarations in Solana. As a result, Aptos has a TPS of up to 160, 000 , more than double that of Solana. The impact of transaction preordering is that it is more difficult to capture MEV on Aptos, which has both advantages and disadvantages for users, and will not be repeated here.

Security-based storytelling is where Aptos is headed

• RWA: Aptos is actively promoting real-world asset tokenization and institutional finance solutions. Compared with Ethereum, Aptos’ Block-STM can process multiple asset transfer transactions in parallel, avoiding the delay of confirmation due to network congestion. On Solana or Sui, despite the fast transaction speed, the mempool-less design may drop transactions when the network is overloaded, affecting the stability of RWA ownership. Aptos’ mempool pre-ordering ensures that transactions are executed sequentially, maintaining the reliability of asset records even during peak periods. RWAs require complex smart contract support, such as asset splitting, yield distribution, and compliance checks. The modular design and security of the Move language make it easier for developers to build reliable RWA applications. In contrast, the complexity and risk of vulnerabilities in Ethereum Solidity increase development costs, while Solana’s Rust programming, while efficient, requires a high learning curve for developers. The eco-friendliness of Aptos is expected to attract more RWA projects to land, creating a positive cycle. Aptos’ potential in the RWA space lies in the combination of security and performance. In the future, it can focus on working with traditional financial institutions to put high-value assets such as bonds and stocks on the chain, and use the Move language to create a highly compliant tokenization standard. This “security + efficiency” narrative is what sets Aptos apart in the RWA market.

In July 2024, Aptos officially announced the introduction of Ondo Finance’s USDY into the ecosystem, and integrated it with major DEXs and lending applications, as of March 10, USDY’s market capitalization on Aptos is about $15 million, accounting for about 2.5% of USDY’s total market capitalization. In October 2024, Aptos announced that Franklin Templeton had launched the Franklin On-Chain U.S. Government Money Fund (FOBXX) represented by the BENJI token on the Aptos Network. In addition, Aptos partnered with Libre to advance the tokenization of securities, bringing investment funds from Brevan Howard, BlackRock, and Hamilton Lane on-chain to enhance institutional investor access.

• Stablecoin payments: Stablecoin payments need to ensure the finality of transactions and the security of assets. Aptos’ Move language ensures the accuracy of every stablecoin transfer by preventing double spending through a resource model. For example, when users pay with USDC on Aptos, transaction status updates are strictly protected to avoid the loss of funds due to contract vulnerabilities. In addition, Aptos’ low gas fees (thanks to the high TPS cost sharing) make it extremely competitive in micropayment scenarios. Ethereum’s high gas fees limit its payment applications, and Solana’s low cost can affect the user experience due to the risk of transaction drops when the network is overloaded. Aptos’ mempool pre-ordering and Block-STM ensure the stability and low latency of payment transactions.

PayFi and stablecoin payments need to balance decentralization and regulatory compliance. AptosBFT’s decentralized consensus reduces the risk of centralization, while its modular architecture allows developers to embed KYC/AML checks. For example, a stablecoin issuer can deploy compliant contracts on Aptos to ensure transactions comply with local regulations without sacrificing network efficiency. This is superior to Ethereum’s centralized relay model, and it also compensates for the potential compliance shortcomings led by Solana’s proposers. Aptos’ balanced design makes it more suitable for financial institutions to enter.

Aptos’ potential in the PayFi and stablecoin payment space lies in the trinity of “security, efficiency, and compliance”. In the future, we will continue to promote the large-scale adoption of stablecoins, build cross-border payment networks, or cooperate with payment giants to develop on-chain settlement systems. The high TPS and low cost can also support micropayment scenarios, such as real-time tipping for content creators. Aptos’ narrative can focus on “next-generation payment infrastructure” that attracts two-way traffic for businesses and users.

The security benefits of Aptos – mempool pre-ordering, Block-STM, AptosBFT, and the Move language – not only improve resistance to attacks, but also provide a solid foundation for RWA and PayFi narratives. In the RWA space, its high security and throughput support asset tokenization and large-scale transactions; In PayFi and stablecoin payments, low cost and high efficiency drive real-world applications. Compared with Ethereum’s robust but inefficient, and Solana’s high speed but high barrier to entry, Aptos breaks new ground with a balanced approach. In the future, Aptos can leverage these advantages to shape the narrative of a “security-driven value network” and become a bridge between the traditional economy and the blockchain.

Summary: Aptos’ Technical Differences vs. Future Narrative

Through the lens of the transaction lifecycle, we were able to clearly compare the technical design differences between Aptos and Ethereum, Solana, and Sui, and reveal their core narratives. The following table summarizes the similarities and differences between the four in the broadcast, sequencing, and execution phases, highlighting the unique advantages of Aptos:

! Understand the main differences between Ethereum, Solana and Aptos in the lifecycle of a transaction in simple terms

Aptos is designed to strike a smart balance between performance and security. Its mempool pre-ordering, combined with Block-STM’s optimistic parallelism, lowers the node barrier and achieves a high throughput of 160, 000 TPS, surpassing Solana’s deterministic parallelism and Sui’s object-level parallelism. Compared with Ethereum’s serial execution, Aptos’ parallelism brings a qualitative leap; In contrast to Solana’s and Sui’s aggressive optimizations that cut out memory pools, Aptos retains a pre-ordering mechanism to ensure the stability of the network under high loads. This “steady” approach, complemented by the Move language’s resource model, gives Aptos greater security – both to defend against DDoS attacks and contract vulnerabilities – better than Ethereum’s traditional architecture and Solana’s high hardware dependency. Compared to Sui, which is also based on the Move language, the differentiation of Aptos and Sui is more revealing. Sui is object-centric and pursues extreme performance through DAG ordering and object-level parallelism, which is suitable for high-concurrency asset management scenarios. Aptos, on the other hand, is account-centric, relying on mempools and optimistic parallelism, taking into account both versatility and ecological compatibility. This difference not only reflects the choice of technology path, but also indicates a divergence in application direction: Sui may be more adept at manipulating complex assets, while Aptos has an advantage in security-driven scenarios. It is based on this combination of security and performance that Aptos shows great potential in the RWA and PayFi narrative. In the RWA space, Aptos’ high throughput supports large-scale asset on-chain feeding, and recent partnerships with Ondo Finance (USDY market capitalization of about $15 million), Franklin Templeton, and Libre have begun to bear fruit. In PayFi and stablecoin payments, Aptos’ low cost, high efficiency, and compliance support for micropayments and cross-border settlements, making it a strong candidate for “next-generation payment infrastructure.”

In summary, Aptos incorporates security and efficiency considerations into every aspect of the transaction lifecycle, which is different from Ethereum’s robustness and inefficiency, Solana’s high performance and high threshold, and Sui’s extreme object-driven optimization. In the future, Aptos can rely on the narrative of “security-driven value network” to connect traditional finance and blockchain ecosystems, continue to make efforts in the field of RWA and PayFi, and build a new public chain pattern with both trust and scalability.

About Movemaker

Movemaker is the first official community organization authorized by the Aptos Foundation and jointly initiated by Ankaa and BlockBooster, focusing on promoting the construction and development of the Aptos Chinese-speaking community. As the official representative of Aptos in the Chinese-speaking region, Movemaker is committed to building a diverse, open, and prosperous Aptos ecosystem by connecting developers, users, capital, and many ecosystem partners.

Disclaimer:

This article/blog is for informational purposes only and represents the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the position of Movemaker. This article is not intended to provide: (i) investment advice or investment recommendations; (ii) an offer or solicitation to buy, sell, or hold digital assets; or (iii) financial, accounting, legal or tax advice. Holding digital assets, including stablecoins and NFTs, is extremely risky, highly volatile in price, and can even become worthless. You should carefully consider whether trading or holding Digital Assets is suitable for you in light of your own financial situation. Please consult your legal, tax or investment advisor if you have questions about your specific circumstances. The information provided in this article, including market data and statistics, if any, is for general information purposes only. Reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of these figures and graphs, but no liability is accepted for any factual errors or omissions expressed in them.