Please note that VanEck holds Sui (SUI) and Aptos (APT), and this article is sourced from Patrick Bush, written by VanEck, and compiled, translated, and written by Foresight News.
(Previous summary: Aptos Labs CEO Mo Shaikh announced his retirement and transition to an advisory role, with CTO Avery Ching taking over.)
(Background supplement: In-depth analysis: Sui vs. Aptos, who is the top public chain in the MOVE system?)
We have compared Sui and Aptos in terms of blockchain performance, scalability, ecosystem, and transaction advantages, and predict that by the end of 2025, the price of SUI will reach $16 and APT will reach $22.
Please note that VanEck holds Sui (SUI) and Aptos (APT).
Sui and Aptos: Origins and Overview
We have previously discussed the potential of Ethereum and Solana to attract billions of users to the crypto field. Although both ecosystems are attractive, they represent early blockchain technologies. Since their inception, a new generation of blockchains has emerged to overcome the limitations of these systems, including Aptos and Sui, founded by former members of the Facebook blockchain project Diem.
Diem attempted to create a stablecoin payment system for the Facebook social media platform, but it was delayed due to regulatory pressure. However, its technological experiment has led to significant breakthroughs in the blockchain field. The most important legacy of Diem is the Move smart contract programming language, which is optimized for addressing the shortcomings of early smart contract languages such as Ethereum Solidity and Cardano Haskell. Both Aptos and Sui use Move to provide developers with a faster, more secure, and more intuitive development environment. Move also enables faster transaction confirmation time and higher throughput for their virtual machines (VMs). The potential of Move is so great that the total market capitalization of blockchain projects based on Move has skyrocketed from about $5 billion to $22 billion within a year.
Key Comparative Dimensions
Blockchain performance and scalability
Ecosystem
Transaction experience
Token economics
Valuation model
2025 price predictions
Conclusion and investment risks
The size of the cryptocurrency developer community is only 1/1000th of JavaScript
The importance of the Move language is that it provides a more user-friendly entry point for developers. The cryptocurrency developer community is very small, with the number of full-time developers at Meta (Facebook) exceeding the entire cryptocurrency industry. By providing a more user-friendly and efficient language, Move is expected to attract a wider range of developers and promote experimentation and innovation. This kind of innovation is crucial for discovering “killer applications” that drive mass adoption. We see blockchain as an innovation experiment platform, and its high valuation is due to its ability to foster applications with billions of users. Since it is impossible to predict how the next breakthrough application will emerge, attracting as many developers as possible for experimentation is crucial.
Aptos and Sui both combine the Move virtual machine with advanced consensus mechanisms to ensure efficient verification of transactions on the network. This combination of cutting-edge virtual machines and consensus protocols forms the technological foundation that surpasses previous generations of blockchain systems. Before innovations such as Solana’s Firedancer proved its limitations, Sui and Aptos represented the pinnacle of blockchain technology.
Aptos achieved a record of 326 million transactions (13,300 TPS) in a single day on 10/18/2024.
Sui and Aptos provide key blockchain technologies that can serve hundreds of millions of users. Both of them outperform Solana (which trades complexity for scalability) and Ethereum (which trades off rigid technical bureaucratic governance and outdated technology for a rich ecosystem) in terms of simplifying the development process and ensuring security. At the tactical level, Sui and Aptos provide a better experience for the current core use cases of cryptocurrencies (speculation and value transfer). At the strategic level, they lay the foundation for non-speculative applications such as AI agents, social media, and cloud services. Although the future form of phenomenon-level applications is still unknown, Sui and Aptos have already demonstrated powerful potential to attract the next generation of blockchain users.
But what makes these systems so exceptional? Which one is better?
Sui vs. Aptos: Blockchain Performance and Scalability
Although they share the same Move language genes, the blockchain architectures of the two represent different design philosophies. Each network uses a customized version of the Move language, optimized for transaction processing in unique ways.
When a transaction is sent to the blockchain, it carries information about the database (i.e., “state”) that needs to be modified. Blockchain engineers refer to these database updates as “state changes.” Most blockchains use a hierarchical validation mechanism: a single validator acts as a temporary “leader” responsible for receiving transactions, validating their validity (checking signatures, preventing double spending), ordering execution, and updating the state before broadcasting the generated transaction block to other validation nodes. When more than two-thirds (66%) of validators reach consensus, the blockchain moves on to the next block.
The blockchain architecture can be divided into two core components:
1. Transaction processing and block construction
– Verify the authenticity of transactions
– Ensure sufficient account balance
– Execute smart contracts
– Update the blockchain ledger
2. Network communication and state synchronization
– Broadcast transaction blocks to the entire network
– Synchronize changes to the ledger to ensure consistent state among all validators
– Resolve conflicts in the ledger reconciliation process
To increase throughput, the block size needs to be increased or data processing efficiency needs to be optimized. Sui and Aptos break through technological boundaries in different ways by customizing the Move language.
Blockchain transaction throughput = block size × block processing speed
Both aim to optimize data processing scale and propagation speed. By analyzing the design differences in the “transaction processing and block construction” phase, we can reveal their respective strengths and trade-offs.
Analogy of blockchain technology: restaurant operations optimization
Blockchain = Restaurant: provides infrastructure and environment
Users = Customers: interact with the system through “ordering” (transactions)
Transactions = Orders: specific requests initiated by users
On-chain applications = Waiters: deliver orders to the kitchen (validators) and return processing results
Leader validators = Kitchen: process orders (validate and execute transactions) and produce results (state changes)
State changes = Dishes: processed results of transactions
In this analogy, the technological improvements of Sui and Aptos are like optimizing restaurant operations—speeding up kitchen efficiency, improving waiter coordination, and ensuring accurate and fast order processing.
Ethereum: Slow-paced restaurant
Ethereum uses a single-threaded state update mechanism that accumulates transactions over a longer period of time to form blocks. Its block capacity is small, and operations are limited, with transactions needing to be sequentially processed—even if they involve different parts of the state. This combination of small blocks, low-frequency updates, and sequential execution leads to low throughput and serious scalability issues.
Analogy: Ethereum is like a restaurant with only one chef. Customers (users) interact with the system through waiters (applications) to place orders, and the orders are aggregated into a list with limited capacity. Orders that do not pay a high enough “tip” (gas fee) are rejected. After about 12 seconds, the order list is sent to the “head chef” (validators) for processing, sorted by tip amount. Due to limited capacity, severe congestion will inevitably occur during peak hours. Users complain about long waiting times and dislike paying high fees without receiving service.
Ethereum restaurant: Even non-conflicting orders need to be processed one by one
Sui and Aptos: Introducing parallel processing in a fast food restaurant
By allowing non-conflicting transactions to be processed in parallel, both have made significant breakthroughs. For example, transactions involving simple payments or different applications can be executed simultaneously. Although chains like Solana and Monad also support parallel processing, Sui and Aptos currently have the most advanced designs.
Analogy: Adding multiple chefs to the kitchen. However, due to the limitation of devices, when multiple tables order pizzas at the same time, insufficient oven capacity will cause some orders to still queue. In the blockchain scenario, this is similar to traders competing for the best price on the same DEX—conflicts need to be resolved, and Sui and Aptos have different approaches.
Parallel processing improves throughput
Sui: Static parallel “fine dining”
Sui adopts a “static parallel” mechanism similar to Solana, where transactions need to declare the read/write parts of the state in advance. Sui determines conflicts based on this information and resolves them in order of fees, time of receipt, etc.
Analogy: In the “Sui restaurant,” waiters (applications) break down the kitchen devices involved in the orders. If two orders require the same device (such as a pizza oven), the system will determine the processing order in advance. For example:
– Table A orders a white pizza
– Table B orders a black pizza (signature dish)
– Table C orders salmon
The orders from A and B conflict due to sharing the oven, and the system prioritizes processing the B order, while the C order can be processed immediately as it uses an idle grill.Sui Conflict Prejudgment Mechanism
Aptos: Dynamic Concurrent “French Feast”
Adopting a “dynamic concurrent” approach similar to Monad, assuming conflicts are rare, conflicts are detected in real-time during transaction processing. If a conflict is found (such as multiple transactions competing for the same asset), it is rolled back and re-ordered.
Analogy: In the “Aptos Restaurant,” the waiters do not need to anticipate the use of kitchen equipment. The order goes directly to the “Kitchen Manager” (scheduler), who assumes no conflicts and processes it immediately. If an actual conflict occurs (such as multiple customers vying for the same dover sole), the cooking process needs to be stopped and rescheduled. Although it may seem inefficient, the high-speed processing capability of the Aptos kitchen can usually handle this kind of loss.
Aptos Dynamic Conflict Resolution
Profound Impact of Two Models
Aptos’ developer-friendliness
Does not require declaring state dependencies, reducing development complexity
Suitable for flexible application scenarios (such as order condition execution)
Sui’s execution efficiency
Prevents conflicts in advance, reducing computational resource consumption
Performs well in high competition scenarios (such as DEX arbitrage)
But may result in some states being monopolized due to “write locks”
Extreme Scenario Testing
Aptos may encounter scheduling bottlenecks in high conflict situations (following Kingman’s formula: when the system load approaches full, a small increase in flow will cause exponential delay)
Sui’s write locks may lead to inefficient resource utilization
Sui’s unique advantages: local cost market and service-level agreements
Local cost market
Different applications can independently price gas fees (such as Aftermath Finance’s SUI/USDC pool can set individual prices)
Contrast with Aptos/Ethereum’s global cost market (congestion in a single application leading to network-wide gas price increase)
Analogy: Sui restaurant prices each cooking area based on demand (raising the price of sea urchin pasta does not affect beef roll pancakes), while Aptos has a unified pricing across the board (increased demand for citrus-marinated fish ice cream leads to increased cost of red snapper pizza).
Service-level agreements (SLA)
Validators can promise daily transaction delays and pricing
Ensures enterprise-level applications are not affected by other on-chain activities
Finality Time: Sui has the advantage
For simple payment transactions, Sui achieves low latency and high throughput through two mechanisms:
Fast Path: Bypasses the consensus mechanism, reducing latency to as low as 300 milliseconds
Pilot Fish: Validators can add servers to achieve near-infinite scalability
Its technical foundation lies in the object-oriented state architecture—assets such as USDC are held directly by users as separate objects (rather than in Ethereum’s contract accounting model). When two users transfer funds at the same time, Sui can process them concurrently (modifying the ownership of their respective objects), while Aptos/Solana needs to sequentially access the same smart contract.
Aptos’ response: Quorum Store
Improving throughput by optimizing the consensus process:
Allows non-leader validators to participate in transaction propagation
Leaders focus on block proposal and broadcasting
May exacerbate scheduling challenges in high conflict scenarios
Security trade-offs
Sui omits the DAG verification step to improve speed, making it more susceptible to network packet loss (e.g., 1% packet loss by 5 out of 100 validators significantly slows down the network). In addition, Sui has a larger attack surface for malicious validators compared to Aptos. Although major attacks on PoS systems remain theoretical risks, this vulnerability may amplify as the ecosystem matures.
Ecosystem Status: Sui temporarily leads
Key Applications
Sui: Lending protocols Suilend/Navi (TVL over 450 million) and perpetual contract BlueFin (average daily trading volume of 250 million, ranked 7th in the entire chain)
Aptos: Stablecoin DEX protocol Thala (TVL 135 million)
Incentive strategies and “hiring capital” risks
Sui: Commits to incentivizing the ecosystem with 157 million SUI (current value of about 300 million USD) by October 2023, estimated annualized return increase of 5.2%-10%
Aptos: Offers APT rewards of 6.5%-20% to attract liquidity, estimated annual incentive spending of 100 million USD
Both face the “hiring capital” problem—users only come for arbitrage rewards, and the sustainability of the ecosystem is in question
Developer and community activity
Active developers: Sui 280 per week vs. Aptos 272 per week (Ethereum 3,300, Solana 1,200)
Google search popularity: Sui is 9 times that of Aptos, surpassing Solana for 17 days and surpassing Ethereum for 16 days in the past 90 days
No successful differentiating applications have emerged yet (such as Sui’s FanTV, Birds with low user volume)
Trading Experience: Sui is superior
Sui has built a superior system for traders, which is reflected in:
Programmable Transaction Block (PTB)
A single transaction can dynamically call up to 1,024 instructions, combining on-chain/off-chain data for decision-making (such as DEX aggregators using ASIC/GPU to calculate the optimal path).
Beyond Solana’s account limit (64 input accounts), supports complex transactions (such as simultaneous operations on over 100 objects).
Gas Fee Mechanism
Sui: Validators set the base price, and users can add priority fees to jump the queue. Adopts a local cost market, allowing independently priced high-demand applications (such as Aftermath Finance’s SUI/USDC pool).
Aptos: Gas floor price set by governance, fees fluctuate globally. No priority fee mechanism, network-wide increase in high-demand scenarios.
DeepBook Liquidity Layer
Built-in central limit order book (CLOB) in the Sui chain, aggregating liquidity across the chain.
Reduces DEX slippage and weakens the liquidity monopoly advantage of top applications.
Impact:
Market makers have lower costs in updating quotes on Sui (updating thousands of orders in a single transaction).
Sui DEX may have better spreads than Aptos, attracting more trading volume.
Tokenomics Comparison
Unique designs:
Sui Storage Fund: The network pays newly minted SUI to validators, compensating for long-term storage costs and creating deflationary pressure on the token.
APT inflation and burn balance: High trading volume may cause APT to enter deflation, but the current annual inflation is still higher than the burn rate.
Valuation model and price predictions
Total market capitalization of Smart Contract Platforms (SCP)
Expected to reach 1.1 trillion USD by the end of 2025 (current 770 billion, +43%)
Based on the US M2 money supply (expected to be 22.3 trillion by 2025, annual growth of 3.2%) regression analysis (R²=0.36)
Market share of the Move system
Current 2.7% (Sui 2% + Aptos 0.7%) → 6.5% in 2025
Price predictions
SUI: 5.5% market share corresponds to a market capitalization of 610 billion, with a circulating supply of 3 billion → $16 (current price 3.75, +326%)
APT: 1% market share corresponds to a market capitalization of 110 billion, with a circulating supply of 507 million → $22 (current price 7.3, +201%)
Conclusion and Investment Risks
Our conclusion
Existing evidence suggests that Sui is more competitive with its performance advantages and scalability potential. Its unique local cost market, Pilot Fish architecture, and fast path design provide high-frequency traders with a superior DeFi pricing environment. Coupled with its strong community narrative ability, Sui has established a leading position in token performance and ecosystem activity.
However, Aptos’ advantages in development flexibility and chain robustness should not be overlooked. Although Sui currently leads significantly in TVL, DEX trading volume, and other economic indicators, the dynamic changes in the cryptocurrency market can quickly reverse the situation. In the long run, the winner will be determined by who can sustain innovation and translate technical advantages into ecosystem prosperity.
Five key risks
Business expansion dilemma: Both have not formed a synergistic strategy for technical development and ecosystem expansion. If they fail to cultivate killer applications that truly utilize their technical features, the sustainability of the ecosystem is in doubt.
Lack of stress testing: Current transactions are primarily simple transfers and have not undergone extreme tests like Solana-level DEX trading volume. Innovative features such as Pilot Fish may require compromises in high-pressure scenarios.
Intensifying competition threats:
Solana Firedancer upgrade: After the 2025 performance upgrade, it may surpass Sui/Aptos
Emerging public chains: Monad’s dual advantage in the technical community, Berachain’s speculative momentum
Historical lessons: High-performance chains are easily replaced by newcomers (such as the decline of EOS, Tezos)
Macroeconomic fluctuations: Cryptocurrencies are strongly correlated with the US M2 money supply (R²=0.36). If the Federal Reserve tightens liquidity or a global financial crisis occurs, SCP market value may shrink significantly.
Regulatory black swan: If the FIT 21 bill sets strict decentralized standards, Sui/Aptos may be classified as securities, limiting their circulation to qualified investors.
Disclaimer
The content described in this article is for research purposes and does not constitute investment advice. Price predictions are derived from hypothetical models, and actual results may deviate significantly from expectations. Blockchain technology carries high risks and market volatility. Readers are advised to independently assess and assume investment responsibility.
Related Reports
List Released! Taiwan’s Blockchain “Most Influential 30 People of the Year”: 2025 Market Key Predictions, Web3 Trend Analysis
Break the Curse of Altcoin? How Sui’s New Asset Breaks Through
Altcoin Spotlight? Grayscale Adds SUI, CRV, ADA, LPT in Q4, Removes SNX, AVAX