In this article, we are going to find out some of the differences between Sui and Ethereum and be able to choose from them based on our project requirements.

Sui utilizes novel design choices, including a unique object-centric data model and the Move programming language (originating from Facebook’s Diem project), to enable high throughput and secure smart contract execution. Both platforms enable developers to create smart contracts and decentralized applications, but they differ fundamentally in architecture and approach. This article provides a detailed comparison of Ethereum and Sui, highlighting key differences in their programming paradigms, features, architecture, consensus mechanisms, scalability, developer experience, and ecosystem maturity.

Let's compare these two chains:

Consensus Mechanism:

Sui

Delegated Proof-of-Stake with Byzantine consensus (Narwhal & Bullshark). Validators (chosen each epoch) use a DAG-based mempool (Narwhal) and BFT consensus (Bullshark) for fast ordering​. Near-instant finality (sub-second in ideal conditions) is achieved with this optimized consensus​.

Ethereum

Proof-of-Stake .Validators stake ETH to propose and validate blocks; finality achieved via epochs and attestations​(approx~ 13 minutes or 2 epochs)

Smart Contract Language

Sui

Move. Uses an adapted Move language that treats assets as objects with strict ownership rules. Move’s design prevents asset duplication or loss by default and enforces safety at the language level​. This leads to more secure contracts out-of-the-box, with a slightly stricter programming model.

Ethereum

Solidity (also Vyper for pythonists, Yul, and Huff). Contracts compiled to EVM bytecode. Solidity is flexible but prone to developer errors if not carefully written; extensive audits and best practices are needed for security.

Execution Model

Sui

Parallel execution via object-centric design. Transactions in Sui specify the objects they read/write. If transactions affect independent objects (especially “owned” objects with separate owners), they can be executed concurrently by validators​. Only conflicts (e.g. two txns touching the same “shared” object) require ordering through consensus​. This enables multiple transactions to be processed simultaneously, dramatically improving throughput.,

Ethereum

Sequential execution on the EVM. Transactions are ordered in each block and executed one by one on every node, which means each transaction must run to completion (updating global state) before the next begins​. This simplifies state management but creates a bottleneck – even independent transactions cannot be processed in parallel.

Transaction Processing

Sui

Sub-second block finality in optimal conditions​; theoretical throughput in the tens of thousands TPS. Sui’s design (parallel execution and efficient consensus) has demonstrated >120,000 TPS in test settings​. In practice, Sui’s mainnet is expected to handle high loads without sharding. Transaction fees are designed to remain stable, with gas price governance per epoch​, keeping costs low even as demand grows.

Ethereum

~12 second block time; throughput historically ~15–30 TPS on mainnet (scaling achieved via Layer-2 solutions). Finality is probabilistic per block, with economic finality after ~2 epochs (~6-13 minutes) in PoS​. Gas fees can spike under load, and users often rely on rollups or sidechains for higher performance.

Scalability

Sui

Horizontal scalability by design. Sui can utilize more validator resources to increase throughput – analogous to adding more “lanes” for transactions​. The network does not have a fixed TPS limit; if more hardware is added and transactions are independent, throughput scales up. This makes Sui capable of scaling on the base layer for high-demand use cases (e.g., gaming, social networks) without immediately needing layer-2s or sharding.

Ethereum

Relies on Layer-2 scaling (Rollups like Optimistic or ZK-Rollups) and future sharding upgrades. Ethereum’s roadmap (Danksharding, etc.) aims to increase base layer throughput, but currently, the strategy is to offload activity to L2 networks and use Ethereum for settlement. This approach maintains decentralization but pushes true scale to auxiliary networks.

Developer Experience

Sui

Growing and security-focused. Sui provides a new toolkit (Sui CLI, SDKs, Move compiler, etc.) and detailed documentation. Developers may need to learn the Move language and adapt to thinking in terms of objects and resources. This learning curve can be offset by Sui’s emphasis on correctness – by following Sui’s model, developers naturally avoid many pitfalls. The ecosystem is actively building tools (for example, Move package managers and testing frameworks), and Mysten Labs has invested in developer outreach (hackathons, tutorials). While not as extensive as Ethereum’s, Sui’s developer community is enthusiastic, and early adopters benefit from direct support channels as the ecosystem matures.

Ethereum

Ethereum has numerous developer tools: IDEs (Remix online IDE), frameworks (Foundry, Hardhat, Brownie), libraries (Web3.js, Ethers.js, Viem.js, etc.), and test networks. The community support is unparalleled – countless tutorials, forums, and established patterns exist. However, mastering Ethereum development requires understanding gas mechanics, security patterns, and the EVM’s constraints, which can be challenging for newcomers​.

My above explanations can be summarized into this line:

In summary, Ethereum stands as the established general-purpose blockchain with broad adoption and a rich ecosystem, whereas Sui is an emerging high-performance blockchain incorporating new paradigms for scalability and safety. As blockchain technology evolves, both platforms could coexist, each inspiring improvements in the other. Ethereum might adopt some parallelization techniques (research is ongoing into parallel EVM execution​, and Sui will certainly learn from Ethereum’s experiences in governance and community building. For developers and businesses, the choice will come down to the demands of their project: the comfort of the tried-and-true versus the allure of the new and fast. By understanding the key differences outlined above – from programming models to consensus – one can make an informed decision or strategy that harnesses the best of both worlds, potentially leveraging Ethereum’s solidity and Sui’s agility to build the next generation of decentralized applications