Here’s an extremely simplified “no coder” explanation of why not all L2s are built the same.

Explaining this subject without getting too deep into coding languages and technicalities is extremely hard to tackle but I’ll try my best.

Of course, this isn't some sort of guide on how L2s are built or operate but is merely a fun, quick explanation of how some of them are different.

I’ll be focusing on zkEVM compatibility and will be comparing the top Ethereum L2s on the market with Zero Knowledge tech

​

As we can see, although they all do a great job at scaling Ethereum, some have a slighter advantage (Polygon zkEVM)

Polygon is currently a Type 2 in EVM equivalence meaning they built an infrastructure that is compatible with EVM at Bytecode-Level. This means Polygon’s zkEVM can achieve compatibility at both the solidity language level and opcode level.

Scroll also has similar features but I’m not sure if it’s 100% Bytecode equivalent (correct me if I’m wrong)

Competitors on the other hand are at level

While competitors are at Type 4 in EVM equivalence meaning they

What it basically means is that they take a high-level coding language (like Vyper or Solidity) and transpile it down to SNARK-friendly VM. language-level (e.g. zkSync's Zinc, and StarkWare's Cairo)

For the average “no coders” these might seem like very slight differences that don’t make any difference but this couldn’t be farther away from the truth.

These small differences are being developed to end up achieving full Ethereum-equivalent Type 1 EVMs which is a feat still not achieved by any L2