MUD vs Dojo 2025: Best Frameworks for Ethereum and Starknet On-Chain Games
In the fast-evolving world of fully on-chain game development 2025, two frameworks stand out as powerhouses: MUD for Ethereum and EVM-compatible chains, and Dojo for Starknet. As blockchain gaming shifts toward true decentralization, these tools are redefining how developers build scalable, provable experiences. MUD’s maturity meets Dojo’s innovative edge, sparking endless debates in developer circles about which reigns supreme for Ethereum versus Starknet on-chain games. With Starknet’s ecosystem surging into 2025, now’s the time to dissect their strengths.
MUD, crafted by Lattice, has become the go-to for Ethereum-centric projects. Its modular design abstracts away the headaches of on-chain state management, letting developers focus on gameplay. Picture this: an embedded EVM database called the Store that indexes data automatically and slashes storage costs compared to raw Solidity. Then there’s the World contract, your game’s command center, routing calls to systems with business logic while opening doors for permissionless extensions. Third-party devs can plug in without your say-so, fostering vibrant ecosystems around titles built on MUD.
MUD’s Dominance in EVM On-Chain Ecosystems
Over 90% of EVM on-chain games lean on MUD, a testament to its battle-tested architecture. Solidity under the hood means Ethereum veterans hit the ground running, no steep learning cliffs. Whether you’re crafting real-time strategies or persistent worlds, MUD’s Entity Component System (ECS) separates data from logic cleanly, boosting efficiency. I’ve seen projects explode in complexity without buckling, thanks to that standardized data model. For developers eyeing broad EVM compatibility, MUD feels like home turf, especially as Layer-2s proliferate.
But it’s not just ease; MUD drives real adoption. Games leveraging it handle thousands of concurrent players with optimized gas usage, proving Ethereum can punch above its Layer-1 weight. If your vision ties to Ethereum’s massive liquidity and tooling, MUD equips you to thrive amid 2025’s bull run in Web3 gaming.
MUD Framework: Key Features
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Store | Embedded EVM database with automatic indexing and efficient data storage, reducing costs compared to Solidity’s native storage. |
| World | Central entry point that forwards calls to systems with game logic and enables permissionless extensions. |
| ECS Architecture | Entity Component System separating data (components) from logic (systems) for scalable on-chain games. |
| Solidity Language | Uses Solidity, Ethereum’s primary language, for broad developer accessibility. |
| EVM Compatibility | EVM-centric, runs on any EVM-compatible chain with over 90% adoption in EVM on-chain games. |
Dojo’s Provable Revolution on Starknet
Enter Dojo, the open-source engine tailored for Starknet’s ZK-rollup magic. Community-driven and Cairo-powered, it flips the script on provability: run the same logic on sequencers or local clients, baking in anti-cheat from the start. Optimistic updates mean snappier gameplay without sacrificing decentralization. ECS shines here too, paired with state diffing to keep on-chain costs razor-thin, even for high-throughput battles.
Starknet’s scalability lets Dojo flex on complex simulations that would choke Ethereum. Deploy to Layer-3s like Katana or Madara for gaming-optimized sequencing, and you’ve got a playground for autonomous worlds. Dojo isn’t just a framework; it’s a bet on ZK’s future, where proofs ensure fairness in every move. Early movers on Starknet rave about its composability, chaining games into shared universes effortlessly.
While Cairo demands some ramp-up, the payoff is immense for Starknet loyalists. As the ecosystem matures per 2025 reports, Dojo positions devs for cost-effective, scalable hits that Ethereum setups might envy.
Core Differences Shaping 2025 Choices
MUD vs Dojo boils down to ecosystems and tech stacks. MUD’s Solidity accessibility and EVM ubiquity suit Ethereum purists, boasting deeper maturity and game libraries. Dojo counters with ZK prowess, Cairo’s proof-friendly syntax, and Starknet’s throughput edge, ideal for bleeding-edge provable games. Cost-wise, Dojo often undercuts MUD on intensive ops, but MUD’s tooling ecosystem evens the score for rapid prototyping. Check out this deeper dive on their head-to-head for L2s and Starknet. Picking sides? It hinges on your chain allegiance and scalability needs in this Starknet game engine comparison.
Both embrace ECS for modularity, yet Dojo’s rollup integration elevates state handling. MUD excels in permissionless innovation; Dojo in verifiable execution. As 2025 unfolds, hybrids might emerge, but for now, these frameworks anchor the on-chain vanguard.
Developer surveys from late 2025 highlight how these differences play out in practice. MUD projects report faster iteration cycles thanks to familiar Solidity tooling and a flood of npm packages tailored for ECS. Dojo devs, meanwhile, praise the framework’s torque on Starknet, where ZK proofs turn potential bottlenecks into seamless experiences. I’ve analyzed dozens of deployments: MUD shines in hybrid off-chain/on-chain setups, but Dojo’s provability locks in trustless play that Ethereum layers struggle to match without custom oracles.
MUD vs Dojo Performance Metrics 2025
| Metric | MUD (Ethereum/EVM) | Dojo (Starknet) |
|---|---|---|
| TPS | 100-500 | 1k-10k |
| Gas Costs per Tx | $0.01-0.05 | $0.001-0.005 |
| Adoption in Games | 90% EVM | 70% Starknet |
Real-World Deployments and Case Studies
Take MUD’s stronghold on Ethereum L2s like Base and Optimism. Titles built here leverage the framework’s World for modular expansions, drawing in NFT communities and yield farmers alike. One standout deploys permissionless systems for player economies, where anyone can inject trading mechanics without core team approval. This composability has fueled token valuations soaring in 2025’s market, underscoring MUD’s edge for investor-backed Ethereum on-chain games.
Dojo flips that script on Starknet. Games like those powered by Cartridge’s Katana sequencer simulate thousands of entities per block, from fleet battles to evolving ecosystems. PixeLAW experiments show Cairo’s power: state diffing syncs massive worlds off-chain then settles diffs on-rollup, slashing fees by 80% versus MUD equivalents. Starknet’s 2025 ecosystem report notes Dojo’s role in 50 and active titles, with provable logic enabling leaderboards immune to exploits. For long-term holders, this translates to durable DAOs governing game assets, a resilience Ethereum projects often chase through governance hacks.
Entity Position Component: Dojo (Cairo) vs MUD (Solidity)
To illustrate the differences in ECS implementation, consider a fundamental entity position update. Dojo leverages Cairo’s type-safe, functional ECS model with components defined as structs and updates via systems that interact with the world store. In contrast, MUD provides a Solidity-based ECS layer on Ethereum, using tables for components and direct setter functions for updates. Here’s a side-by-side example:
```cairo
// Dojo (Cairo) ECS Component: Position
#[component]
#[derive(Copy, Drop, Serde)]
struct Position {
x: u32,
y: u32,
}
// Updating position in a Dojo system
fn move_entity(
ctx: Context,
entity_id: u32,
new_x: u32,
new_y: u32,
) {
set!(
ctx.world,
(entity_id,).into(),
Position { x: new_x, y: new_y }
);
}
```
```solidity
// MUD (Solidity) Equivalent: Position Component & Update
struct Position {
uint32 x;
uint32 y;
}
// In MUD World contract
function setPosition(
EntityKey key,
Position memory newPosition
) public {
set(key, newPosition);
}
```
Dojo’s approach emphasizes immutability and explicit world interactions, ideal for Starknet’s parallel execution, while MUD’s table-based sets integrate seamlessly with Ethereum’s EVM, offering gas-efficient on-chain state management. Both enable reactive, multiplayer game logic but cater to their respective chain’s strengths.
From a valuation lens, MUD’s maturity yields quicker ROI for Ethereum launches, with established DEX liquidity and wallet integrations. Yet Dojo’s scalability positions Starknet games for explosive growth as ZK matures. Metrics from Chaincatcher analyses reveal Dojo deployments averaging 3x lower operational costs, a boon for bootstrapped teams eyeing sustainability. My research favors Dojo for high-fidelity simulations, where Starknet’s throughput turns ambitious visions into playable realities without endless optimization rabbit holes.
Developer Toolkit and Getting Started
Hands-on, both frameworks lower barriers via CLI tools and templates. MUD’s foundry integration spins up worlds in minutes; Dojo’s sozo CLI deploys full stacks to testnets effortlessly. For Ethereum devs, start with MUD’s docs and port Solidity modules seamlessly. Starknet newcomers tackle Cairo via Dojo’s playgrounds, where provability demos build confidence fast. Check this practical guide to prototype your first fully on-chain game development 2025 project side-by-side.
Challenges persist: MUD grapples with EVM calldata bloat on L1 spikes, while Dojo’s Cairo curve slows solo devs. But community momentum bridges gaps, with Discord swarms and GitHub forks accelerating both. In 2025, hybrid approaches tease MUD-Dojo bridges via cross-chain messaging, hinting at unified on-chain metas.
For investors and builders, the choice sharpens around risk appetites. MUD secures Ethereum’s proven liquidity, minting reliable alpha in familiar waters. Dojo unlocks Starknet’s upside, where ZK economics promise outsized returns as adoption snowballs. Both propel the Web3 gaming revolution, but align your stack with the chain’s trajectory. Patience rewards those betting on frameworks that scale with the protocol beneath.
