Let’s compare about Sui Move vs. Aptos Move.These two are like siblings from the Move language fam, but they’ve definitely got their own personalities:

How they roll? The Runtime Differences: Performance, Scalability, and Developer Experience

Both Sui and Aptos implement custom Move virtual machines (VMs), which serve as their runtimes, influencing performance, scalability, and developer experience.

Research indicates that Sui Move’s like that friend who’s always rushing around, getting stuff done quick. Its virtual machine is built for speed—think 0.5 seconds to lock in a transaction, thanks to some fancy parallel execution tricks with a DAG setup (e.g., 0.5 seconds, as noted in Aptos vs. Sui vs. Movement: Move Blockchains Compared)

In contrast, Aptos employs a linear architecture with parallel execution capabilities, but its consensus on every transaction may introduce bottlenecks at scale, with finality around 0.9 seconds.

Sui’s causal ordering means many transactions don’t require full consensus, reducing latency, while Aptos uses AptosBFT, a derivative of HotStuff, ensuring quick finalization but potentially higher computational overhead.

Sui’s model includes a reference gas price set at the start of each epoch, based on validator inputs, ensuring predictability and low fees (e.g., average transaction fee of $0.0001, as per Sui vs. Aptos: Which Blockchain is Right for You?).

Standard Libraries: Modules, Functions, and Use Cases

Because Sui and Aptos have distinct architectural designs—Sui is object-centric, treating assets as transferable objects, while Aptos is account-based, associating assets with accounts—their standard libraries differ significantly in structure and usage.

Creating a Custom Token

In Aptos, the managed_coin module from the aptos_framework standard library provides a straightforward way to create and manage fungible tokens. Here's an example:

module example::MyToken {
    use aptos_framework::managed_coin;
    use std::signer;

    /// Struct representing the custom token
    struct MyToken has key { }

    /// Initialize the token with name, symbol, decimals, and monitoring option
    public entry fun initialize(account: &signer) {
        managed_coin::initialize<MyToken>(
            account,
            b"MyToken",           // Name
            b"MTK",              // Symbol
            6,                   // Decimals
            true,                // Enable monitoring
        );
    }

    /// Mint tokens to the caller's account
    public entry fun mint(account: &signer, amount: u64) {
        managed_coin::mint<MyToken>(account, amount);
    }
}

This usecase creating a fungible token tied to an account, typical in account-based systems like Aptos.

In Sui, the coin module from the sui standard library manages tokens as objects. You create a currency and use a TreasuryCap object to mint coins. Here's an example:

module example::MyToken {
    use sui::coin::{Self, Coin, TreasuryCap};
    use sui::transfer;
    use sui::tx_context::{Self, TxContext};

    /// Struct defining the custom token type (with `drop` for currency creation)
    struct MY_TOKEN has drop { }

    /// Create a new currency and transfer its TreasuryCap and metadata
    public entry fun create_currency(ctx: &mut TxContext) {
        let (treasury_cap, metadata) = coin::create_currency(
            MY_TOKEN {},         // Token type witness
            6,                   // Decimals
            b"MTK",              // Symbol
            b"MyToken",          // Name
            b"A custom token",   // Description
            option::none(),      // Optional icon URL
            ctx,
        );
        transfer::public_transfer(treasury_cap, tx_context::sender(ctx));
        transfer::public_transfer(metadata, tx_context::sender(ctx));
    }

    /// Mint new coins using the TreasuryCap
    public fun mint(
        treasury_cap: &mut TreasuryCap<MY_TOKEN>,
        amount: u64,
        ctx: &mut TxContext
    ): Coin<MY_TOKEN> {
        coin::mint(treasury_cap, amount, ctx)
    }
}

Minting an NFT

Aptos uses the token module to manage non-fungible tokens (NFTs) within collections. Here's how to create a collection and mint an NFT:

module example::MyNFT {
    use aptos_framework::token;
    use std::string;
    use std::signer;

    /// Create a new NFT collection
    public entry fun create_collection(creator: &signer) {
        token::create_collection(
            creator,
            string::utf8(b"MyCollection"),       // Collection name
            string::utf8(b"A collection of NFTs"), // Description
            string::utf8(b"https://example.com"), // URI
            true, true, true, true, true, true, true, true, true, // Mutability flags
        );
    }

    /// Mint an NFT within the collection
    public entry fun mint_nft(
        creator: &signer,
        collection: &string::String,
        name: &string::String,
        uri: &string::String
    ) {
        token::create_token(
            creator,
            *collection,
            *name,
            string::utf8(b"Description"), // Token description
            1,                            // Maximum supply (1 for NFT)
            *uri,                         // Token URI
            0, 0, 0,                      // Royalty settings
            vector::empty(),              // Property keys
            vector::empty(),              // Property values
            vector::empty(),              // Property types
        );
    }
}```


 Managing unique digital assets (e.g., artwork) within a structured collection, common in account-based NFT systems.

In Sui, NFTs are standalone `objects` with unique IDs, managed using the `object` and `transfer` modules. Here's an example:

```rust
module example::MyNFT {
    use sui::object::{Self, UID};
    use sui::transfer;
    use sui::tx_context::{Self, TxContext};
    use std::string;

    /// Struct representing an NFT
    struct MyNFT has key {
        id: UID,
        name: string::String,
        uri: string::String,
    }

    /// Mint an NFT and transfer it to the sender
    public entry fun mint(
        ctx: &mut TxContext,
        name: string::String,
        uri: string::String
    ) {
        let nft = MyNFT {
            id: object::new(ctx),  // Generate a unique ID
            name,
            uri,
        };
        transfer::transfer(nft, tx_context::sender(ctx));
    }
}

Creating and transferring unique assets (e.g., collectibles) as independent objects, leveraging Sui's object-centric flexibility. These differences mean developers must adapt code, impacting development time and ecosystem interoperability.

Data Storage: Object-Centric vs. Account-Based Models

One of the most significant distinctions is in data storage. Sui employs an object-centric model, where each asset (e.g., tokens, NFTs) is an object with metadata, ownership, and permissions, stored on-chain with unique IDs (Object Model | Sui Documentation).This model allows for parallel state updates, enhancing composability and gas efficiency, as transactions often require only one ledger update (e.g., transferring an object updates its state, not multiple accounts).

Aptos, conversely, uses an account-based model, similar to Ethereum, where accounts own resources in global storage, necessitating updates to both sender and recipient accounts per transaction (Aptos vs. Sui - The Tie).

Closer to EVM or SVM?

The question of whether Aptos is closer to EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) and Sui to SVM (likely Solana Virtual Machine) requires clarification. Aptos’ account-based model aligns with EVM, updating account states per transaction, making it familiar for Ethereum developers (Aptos vs. Sui: Comparing Two Growing Layer-1 Blockchains).

Sui’s object-centric model, however, is unique, not directly comparable to SVM, which is account-based like Solana. Some developers argue Sui resembles Solana in scalability, but this is more about performance than data models. Thus, it’s fair to say Aptos is closer to EVM, while Sui’s model is distinct, not aligning with SVM, challenging the analogy.

Universal Packages: Compatibility and Barriers

Given their shared origins, ideal interoperability would involve universal packages. However, research suggests no such packages exist, as differences in standard libraries and data models create barriers.

For example, a package using Aptos’ aptos_coin wouldn’t work on Sui without rewriting for sui::coin (GitHub - pentagonxyz/movemate: Library of module building blocks for Move). Barriers include platform-specific APIs, object vs. account models, and divergent VM implementations, making seamless compatibility unlikely without significant adaptation.

Here’s a clear, no-fluff comparison between Sui Move and Aptos Move, showing how they share a core language but differ in runtime behavior, data models, and development patterns.

⸻

🏃 Runtime: Speed, Scalability, and Transaction Flow

Sui’s runtime is optimized for parallel execution using a DAG model. Many transactions skip global consensus thanks to causal ordering, so simple transfers can finalize in around 0.5 seconds. It’s built for high throughput and low-latency use cases.

Aptos also supports parallel execution but uses a stricter AptosBFT consensus model (based on HotStuff), so every transaction goes through consensus. This gives stronger consistency guarantees, but can slow things down slightly — finality lands around 0.9 seconds.

In short: • Sui is faster for simple, independent operations. • Aptos leans more toward consistency with broader consensus per tx.

⸻

🧱 Data Model: Object-Centric vs. Account-Centric

Sui’s entire model revolves around objects. Everything on-chain — tokens, NFTs, even packages — are objects with unique IDs. Ownership is tracked per object. This means: • Easy composability and modular design • One transaction = one object change = efficient gas • Great for games, NFTs, and composable DeFi

Aptos sticks to a more familiar account-based model. Accounts own structured resources, and each transaction updates sender/receiver accounts. It’s more like Ethereum: • Familiar for Solidity devs • Strong state consistency • Better fit for traditional token flows

So: • Sui → Like managing assets as standalone entities • Aptos → Like managing balances tied to account state

⸻

💰 Token Creation: TreasuryCap vs. Managed Coin

In Sui, you define a token as an object (MY_TOKEN) and mint it through a TreasuryCap. The coin::create_currency function gives you full control over metadata and supply logic. Tokens are objects too.

In Aptos, you use the managed_coin module. It binds the token to an account and tracks supply via resource access.

Summary: • Sui → Token is an object with UID, lives on-chain • Aptos → Token is a resource under account control

⸻

🎨 NFTs: Collections vs. Standalone Objects

Aptos NFTs are minted inside collections using token::create_token, tied to account storage.

Sui NFTs are standalone objects with their own ID and metadata. You mint and transfer them like any object, with full flexibility.

This means: • Aptos → Better for curated collections • Sui → Better for composable, permissioned NFTs (e.g., game items)

⸻

🔧 Developer Experience & Interop • Sui sets gas price once per epoch → cheap + predictable • Aptos gas is dynamic but more precise per tx

But interop is hard. Shared Move syntax doesn’t equal shared packages: • aptos_framework::coin ≠ sui::coin • Account-based logic doesn’t port easily to object logic

This is why universal packages don’t exist yet. Even with common roots, the VM/runtime differences force devs to write chain-specific logic.

⸻

🔄 EVM vs. SVM Comparison • Aptos is closer to EVM — account model, similar state updates • Sui isn’t quite Solana-like (SVM is also account-based). It’s unique, with object-first design

So forget analogies — Sui stands alone in how it models data and execution.

⸻

📦 How Teams Handle Compatibility

If you’re building cross-chain: • You’ll need adapters or separate modules per chain • Tools like MoveMate or Pentagon help, but full interop still means writing for each runtime • Some devs start on Aptos for simplicity, then move to Sui for scaling and object logic

⸻

TL;DR — Sui vs. Aptos Move

Feature Sui Move Aptos Move Runtime Parallel, DAG-based, sub-1s finality BFT consensus, strong consistency Data model Object-centric Account-based Token creation Via TreasuryCap object Via managed_coin in account NFTs Standalone, composable objects Collection-based, tied to account Dev experience Fast, composable, new model Familiar, stable, Ethereum-like Gas model Epoch-based reference price Per-tx pricing Interop Low, needs chain-specific logic Same