Yesterday, I highlighted 9 clear facts about Zk coprocessors and mentioned the top 3 Zk coprocessors. Today, I will be making a comparative analysis on (Axiom, Brevis, and Lagrange), viewing them from 4 lenses: {1} Product Design {2} Adoption and Integration {3} Market and, {4} Workflow mechanisms Let's dive into it: ~ Product Design From the product lens, each has its own architectural design unique to its core focus, while @axiom_xyz focuses on Rollups, @brevis_zk focuses on dApps, and @lagrangedev on crosschain interoperability and verification. However, their performances and security models differ, while Axiom has proven Ethereum mainnet blocks in 15s, Brevis achieved 99% in 12s, and 80 times performance gains for dAPP, while Lagrange has limited information on its performance efficiency. Here @brevis_zk wins. In terms of security, Axiom runs a ZK-only proof model, while Brevis and Lagrange adopt a Hybrid model to secure data on-chain and also use operators on the Eigen layer to ensure secured off-chain verifications. Who wins here? TBA, when we look at the Integration Friction under the "Adoption and Integration". ~Adoption and Integration What is a working infrastructure if no one integrates it? The more a product is adopted the better it seems. The comparative analysis below shows how well each coprocessor has been adopted across chains. From the image above, you'll realize that Brevis and Lagrange are close competitors with 20+ live protocol integrations, while Axiom has only a record of one currently. Axiom raised the most funds but with less adoption metrics, while Brevis tops with the most adoption rate. Also, ease of integration in the image was measured using Low-High scale, with Lagrange having a high friction based on its dynamic economic structure and use of "State committees." The Economic model depicts the revenue generation mechanism. Axiom and Brevis collect fees using the native chain's token (e.g ETH on Ethereum) while Lagrange uses its $LA token for pricing. In conclusion, viewing each coprocessor from the Product and Adoption lens, we can ascertain that each one of them has its unique architecture, specific product-market fit. But in terms of performance and adoptions, Brevis stands out as the Top Coprocessor. Tomorrow, I'll cover the remaining lens and how well each of the coprocessors fits into the market (who each serves best), and the ease of their workflow mechanisms. Stay Tuned.