These comparisons aim to be neutral, but may contain misunderstandings; if you’re landing on this page from one of the communities listed - feel free to sign up to this site and make clarifying edits!
See also the Crypto Comparison Table sheet where various projects are categorised and ranked.
Below are some of our closest competitors on the technical front. Detailed comparison pages are linked where available, please add to this resource!
| Cryptocurrency | Ticker | Consensus | Contracts | Features | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ergo | ERG | Proof of Work | Box Model | Sigma protocols and focus on financial contracts | eUTXO |
The combination of UTXO and a VM might seem counterintuitive at first, especially since most people are familiar with Ethereum’s account-based model combined with its VM. However, Nervos CKB has designed its system to leverage the benefits of both the UTXO model and a VM. Let’s delve deeper:
| Aspect/Feature | Ethereum VM (eVM) | Ergo (eUTXO + ErgoScript) | Nervos CKB (CKB-VM + Cells) | Alephium (Alphred VM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Execution Environment | Simulates a computer system. | Processes transactions directly on the blockchain. | Operates on the cell model, where each cell can store data, including contract code or state. | Likely simulates a computer system, but specifics would need more detailed documentation. |
| Features | Sigma protocols and focus on financial contracts | Common Knowledge Base, layered architecture, and focus on scalability and security | ||
| Turing Completeness | Yes. | ErgoScript is non-Turing complete, but multi-stage protocols enable Turing completeness. | Yes, CKB-VM is Turing complete. | Likely Turing complete, but specifics would need more detailed documentation. |
| Resource Management | Uses a “gas” mechanism to prevent excessive computation. | Predictable execution cost due to non-Turing complete nature of ErgoScript. | Uses a “cycle” mechanism similar to gas in Ethereum. | Specifics would need more detailed documentation, but most VMs use some form of resource management. |
| State Management | Maintains a global state that’s updated after every transaction. | Uses the eUTXO model which is inherently stateless. Each transaction refers to previous UTXOs and produces new ones. | Uses the cell model. Each transaction references input cells and creates output cells. | Stateful-UTXO, a hybrid that combines features of both UTXO and account-based models. |
| Complexity & Versatility | Can run complex and versatile smart contracts. | ErgoScript ensures predictability, but the multi-stage protocol allows for complex operations. | Designed for flexibility and security. Smart contracts are rules dictating how a cell’s data can be updated. | Designed for scalability and security. |
| Data Model | Account-based model. | Extended UTXO model where UTXOs can carry additional data. | Cell model, an evolution of the UTXO model where each cell can store arbitrary data. | Stateful-UTXO combines features of UTXO and account-based models. |
DigiByte, Ravencoin, and Flux, like Ergo, do not rely on a traditional virtual machine (VM) for their primary functionalities. Instead, they have implemented specialized systems or protocols tailored to their specific use cases.
| Aspect/Feature | Ergo | Digibyte | RavenCoin | Flux |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary Focus | Financial contracts and decentralized applications | DigiAssets for asset issuance and more | Asset issuance and transfer | Decentralized computational infrastructure |
| Execution Environment | eUTXO model with ErgoScript | Native DigiByte blockchain | Native Ravencoin protocol | Native Flux blockchain |
| Smart Contracts | ErgoScript with multi-stage protocol for Turing completeness | Limited programmable conditions | Primarily asset-focused, not versatile smart contracts | Not the primary focus |
| Asset System | eUTXO model allows for token issuance and more | DigiAssets | Asset Layer | Flux Assets |
While all these models use PoW, the way they achieve consensus and handle transactions varies, leading to different trade-offs in terms of security, speed, and decentralization. Here’s a comparison table of the consensus mechanisms compared to Ergo’s eUTXO model:
| Feature/Model | Ergo | Conflux | Syscoin | Kaspa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | eUTXO | Tree-Graph (TG) | Z-DAG | GHOSTDAG |
| Contracts | Box Model | VM | NEVM | Planned |
| Security | Battle-tested with known security assumptions. | Newer mechanism; long-term security implications not as well-understood. | Still a topic of research under different network conditions. | Different security model from traditional blockchains; requires more research. |
| Decentralization | Ensures power isn’t concentrated; anyone can participate. | Aims for high throughput without sacrificing decentralization. | Not inherently tied to decentralization. | Can handle concurrent blocks, but decentralization varies by implementation. |
| Finality | Probabilistic finality; becomes more secure with more confirmations. | Achieves consensus faster than traditional blockchains. | Fast transactions, but finality varies by implementation. | Provides a partial order of blocks for faster consensus. |
| Efficiency | Optimized for smart contracts and complex financial transactions. | Optimized for high throughput. | Designed for fast microtransactions. | Aims for faster consensus than traditional blockchains. |
| Drawbacks | Energy-intensive due to PoW, but offers robust security. | Long-term security implications are still being studied. | Security under adversarial scenarios is still being researched. | Security model is different from traditional blockchains. |
| Cryptocurrency | Ticker | Consensus | Contracts | Fork of | Features | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ethereum Classic | ETC | Proof of Work | Yes | Ethereum | Ethereum’s original chain, focus on immutability and decentralization | Account-based |
| Kadena | KDA | Proof of Work | Yes | Account-based | ||
| Ubiq | UBQ | Proof of Work | Yes | Ethereum | Ethereum fork with modified parameters, focus on stability and enterprise use | Account-based |
| Expanse | EXP | Proof of Work | Yes | Ethereum | Ethereum fork, focus on decentralized applications and governance | Account-based |
| Rootstock | RSK | Merge-mined with Bitcoin | Yes | Bitcoin | Smart contracts on Bitcoin, secured by Bitcoin’s mining power | Account-based |
| Cryptocurrency | Ticker | Consensus | Contracts | Features | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verge | XVG | Proof of Work | (Planned) MiniScript | Focus on privacy, multi-algorithm mining, and fast transactions | UTXO |