On November 14, SUI surpassed 3.5 USDT, marking a new all-time high. Meanwhile, Bitwise announced the launch of an Aptos Staking ETP on the Swiss Stock Exchange, and Movement is gearing up for its mainnet launch. Beyond EVM, Solana, and BTC ecosystems, a vibrant new space is emerging, with Move blockchains gaining significant traction.

Sui, Aptos, and Movement are often discussed together as they are blockchain platforms supporting smart contracts written in the Move language, collectively referred to as “Move blockchains.” Among them, Sui and Aptos are Layer 1 blockchains primarily developed by former Facebook (now Meta) team members who worked on the now-defunct Diem/Libra blockchain project, where the Move language originated. Both projects have secured funding in the hundreds of millions and launched their mainnets, achieving top market cap rankings. Movement, on the other hand, is a Layer 2 solution built on Ethereum, aiming to integrate Move into the ETH ecosystem. With tens of millions of dollars in funding, Movement is currently in its testnet phase.

Despite their shared foundation as “Move blockchains,” these projects differ significantly, much more than most people might expect. As someone who holds both SUI and APT and is deeply involved in both ecosystems, the author hopes this article provides readers with insights they may have overlooked, aiding them in their research and decision-making.

A Brief Look at Technical Differences

While this article primarily takes a non-technical approach, it briefly touches on key technical distinctions between these chains. Recently, DWF Ventures, a well-known market maker, published a comparative analysis of the three projects, but it included factual errors regarding their technical details. If such misconceptions exist even at the institutional level, it underscores the need for a greater understanding of Move blockchains.

Aptos and Sui feature a highly unique architecture that, strictly speaking, does not conform to the traditional definition of a blockchain. Instead, they are based on “checkpoints” that form a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), a specialized data structure. Movement, by contrast, adheres to the standard linear blockchain structure composed of sequential blocks. Another prominent project using a DAG architecture is Kaspa (KAS), a PoW-based platform hailed as a revival of Bitcoin’s original vision. Notably, DWF Ventures incorrectly categorized Aptos as a linear chain in its analysis. While Aptos initially launched as a linear chain, it later transitioned to a DAG-based structure.

Transaction Relationships in DAG

Beyond architecture, differences extend to consensus mechanisms and how each project handles parallel transactions.

Both Sui and Aptos use DAG-based Byzantine Fault Tolerance (BFT) consensus, but their leader selection mechanisms differ.

Movement employs Avalanche’s Snowman consensus, which results in varying transaction finalization times (TTF). Currently, Sui’s Mysticeti consensus is the fastest, confirming transactions in as little as 0.5 seconds. Aptos is set to upgrade to RAPTR consensus, which is also highly promising.

For parallel transaction execution, Aptos and Movement both use the Block-STM parallel engine, an optimistic approach assuming transactions can be processed concurrently, with any failed transactions re-executed. Sui adopts a “state access” method that categorizes, orders, and validates transactions before execution to ensure no conflicts arise.

Although all three platforms use the Move programming language, it has diverged into two distinct versions: Sui Move and Aptos Move. While Movement theoretically supports both, it primarily focuses on compatibility with Aptos Move.

User Experience

(As Movement is still in its testnet phase, this article does not cover its actual user experience.)

Speed and Costs

For high-performance blockchains, speed and low costs are key competitive advantages. In actual usage, the difference in speed between Aptos and Sui is almost imperceptible, with interactions nearly instantaneous.

In terms of costs, Aptos maintains negligible fees across all types of interactions, whereas Sui’s gas fees can be relatively high for certain transactions (e.g., as shown in the image below, claiming rewards on Navi costs $0.14 in fees). Gas fees are also influenced by the quality of contract code, but overall, Aptos demonstrates better cost control.

Stability

Stability is another crucial consideration—nobody wants to rely on a blockchain prone to frequent outages for high-frequency financial activities. Since its mainnet launch, Sui has never experienced downtime and has successfully handled massive transaction volumes during events like Mysten inscriptions and rune trading. By contrast, Aptos faced a brief outage in October last year when block production temporarily halted.

Hardware Wallet Compatibility

As someone who stores tokens with significant value in hardware wallets, I’ve observed notable differences in compatibility:

Sui: Its Ledger integration is poor. Early on, users needed to reconfigure the blind signing option every time they reopened the app, and software updates and maintenance are infrequent. Additionally, none of Sui’s mainstream mobile wallets support hardware wallets.

Aptos: Its Ledger integration is much better, with frequent updates and strong maintenance. The official Petra Wallet not only supports multiple hardware wallets but also includes signature animations tailored for the device—showing an impressive level of attention to detail.

From my perspective, the wallet experience ranks as follows: Aptos’ Petra Wallet > Sui Wallet (balance change simulation and seamless multi-account switching etc.)

This leads me to conclude that Sui appears less focused on crypto-native users, allocating fewer resources to meet their needs. Instead, Sui seems to prioritize narratives around “mass adoption” and “new user acquisition,” actively promoting wallet creation via Web2 platforms like Google, Twitch, and Facebook. This approach aims to expand the overall ecosystem by onboarding Web2 users rather than catering to the existing crypto user base.

Is this strategy good or bad? It’s hard to say. Solana, for example, first captured the existing crypto-native user base before gradually moving toward mass adoption, and the results speak for themselves.

Team’s Perception

From the perspective of a non-technical observer, Sui seems to have a more innovative ethos, while Aptos carries the perception of being a “follower”:

At first, Aptos initially built on the Diem project’s codebase, adopting an account model and a linear blockchain. Sui launched its mainnet later, reimagining many core components and introducing new concepts such as an object-centric DAG. Subsequently, Aptos also shifted to an object model and DAG architecture.

Sui was the first to incentivize DeFi projects in its ecosystem with token rewards to attract TVL, successfully boosting its TVL significantly. Aptos followed suit with similar token subsidies for its ecosystem projects.

A PoW-inspired gameplay mechanic first appeared on Solana, then a clone appeared on Sui, followed by Aptos officially promoting its ecosystem’s version of the same concept.

Sui’s developer, Mysten Labs, used the same logo for two years, while Aptos Labs recently updated its logo to something remarkably similar.

This resemblance might not indicate “copying” but could instead evoke a sense of rivalry or a “frenemy dynamic” between the two teams.

In terms of team generosity, Aptos’ testnet airdrop became a lucrative opportunity for many, providing them with their “first pot of gold.” In contrast, Sui did not offer testnet airdrops, opting instead to host community token allocation lotteries.

Movement’s team, on the other hand, stands out for their exceptional ability to generate hype and build a vibrant community. Even before launching their mainnet, they’ve convinced the crypto community that Movement could be “the next big thing.”

Research and Engineering

The academic research output of Sui’s developer, Mysten Labs, is outstanding. Recently, five of their papers were accepted by ACM CCS, a premier conference in the computer science field. Beyond research, their engineering capabilities are equally impressive. Apart from the widely recognized Sui blockchain, they’ve also developed the decentralized storage protocol Walrus and are working to integrate with the SCION network standard. Furthermore, Sui is exploring innovative functionality, such as enabling transactions via radio waves in the absence of internet connectivity.

Sui’s founder and CEO received the ACM Software System Award in 2012 for contributions to LLVM, further highlighting the team’s expertise.

Aptos Labs, on the other hand, also boasts industry-leading research and engineering prowess. A testament to this is their Block-STM parallel engine, which has been adopted by several major projects, including Starknet, Polygon, Monad, and Movement.

That said, it’s undeniable that Movement’s team lacks the same level of cumulative expertise as Sui or Aptos. However, in today’s meme-driven supercycle, a project’s vibe might outweigh its fundamentals.

Ecosystem and Community

Sui’s ecosystem (Source: DefiLlama)

Sui’s ecosystem, is currently richer and more mature than that of Aptos. Its DeFi TVL (Total Value Locked) is also higher. Aptos has seen significant TVL growth recently, but much of it is concentrated in lending protocols incentivized by foundation grants and APT token rewards. Earlier this year, the author recalls being the only one active in a certain Aptos ecosystem project’s Discord, where questions in English went unanswered for three to four days.

Aptos ecosystem (Source: DefiLlama)

In contrast, Sui’s community appears far more active—possibly buoyed by the strong performance of SUI’s price—suggesting that the “No Airdrop, No Community” mantra has lost its grip. Meanwhile, Movement’s community has garnered a cult-like following, with widespread usage of phrases like “gmove,” giving the project a leading mindshare even before its token launch.

Sui and Aptos seem to have a rivalry that extends to ecosystem partnerships. For instance: Sui’s primary cross-chain bridge is Wormhole, while Aptos opted for LayerZero. Sui introduced native USDC to its network, while Aptos partnered to launch USDT as its first native stablecoin.

Their differing attitudes toward Movement are also notable. Aptos has been more open, welcoming Movement to expand the Move language ecosystem. Nearly every Aptos project the author has used plans to launch on Movement’s mainnet. Sui, however, has taken a more closed approach, with co-founders previously dismissing the relevance of Layer 2 solutions. Most Sui projects remain exclusive to its chain. Movement’s co-founders have even criticized “exclusive protocols” in posts on X (formerly Twitter), seemingly targeting Sui’s stance.

Despite being in its testnet phase, Movement has already attracted over 60 apps and boasts more than 10 million active addresses, demonstrating its growing ecosystem influence.

Shared Challenges

Currently, the Move ecosystem hasn’t created significant wealth effects for retail investors. While foundation grants and token subsidies exist, these rewards are often exploited by high-net-worth whales, leaving retail investors disinterested in single-digit percentage yields. Unlike Solana, there have been no JTO airdrops or meme coin stories like Bonk to drive retail excitement.

Aptos appears better positioned to address this issue, as most projects in its ecosystem have yet to launch tokens. Recommended Reading: Aptos Treasure Map | Don’t Miss These Airdrops & High-Yield Opportunities.

In contrast, third-party Sui projects are gradually rolling out tokens, but with low airdrop ratios. For example, Sui’s largest lending protocol, Navi (recently surpassed by Suilend, which plans a December airdrop), launched a points leaderboard in January, promising points would play a key role in a future token airdrop. However, since Navi’s token launch in February, no airdrop has occurred, leaving participants disappointed.

To compensate for underwhelming third-party contributions, Sui’s developers have introduced their own projects, such as DeepBook and SuiNS, with broad community airdrops and price increases to boost Sui’s “wealth effect.”

Both ecosystems need to improve their meme-based wealth generation. SUI’s FDV (Fully Diluted Valuation) and circulating market cap are roughly one-third and one-tenth of SOL’s, respectively. However, the largest meme coin on Sui has only one-twentieth the market cap of Solana’s leading meme coin, while Aptos’ biggest meme, GUI, has a market cap that’s just one-hundredth of WIF’s.

Despite current challenges, the future of Move-based blockchains looks bright. Recommended Reading: Why Developers Are Betting on Move Chains?

Disclaimer:

1. This article is reproduced from [foresightnews]. The copyright belongs to the original author [Alex Liu]. If you have any objection to the reprint, please contact Gate Learn, the team will handle it as soon as possible according to relevant procedures.
2. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article represent only the author’s personal views and do not constitute any investment advice.
3. Translations of the article into other languages are done by the Gate Learn team. Unless mentioned, copying, distributing, or plagiarizing the translated articles is prohibited.