Yesterday, I made a comparative analysis of Axiom, Brevis, and Lagrange, viewing them from the Product Design and Adoption and Integration lens. Today, I'll be finalizing my analysis and comparing them from the: ~ Market and ~ Workflow Mechanisms lenses Let's get to it: ~ Market By comparing how each product fits seamlessly into the market, I discovered that each had target customers and user bases: @axiom_xyz 's OpenVM + Proving API targets multiple domains, but primarily rollups. @brevis_zk is the dapps-friendly coprocessor, also being a leading candidate for Ethereum L1 zkEVM integration. @lagrangedev is at the intersection of rollups, bridges, and AI, pairing state committees for cross-chain with a ZK/AI stack. Each employed a different marketing approach, thereby growing their market share and shaping a distinct culture. However, in terms of efficiency, Brevis' approach tops the chart by turning every integration and technical milestone into public campaigns that match hype with product authenticity. Now, the Workflow Mechanism This section includes an image per coprocessor plus a case-study integration, then a conclusion on which has the easiest, fastest, and most secure flow. 1} Axiom. Think of this like a rollup upgrading its engine. Here, teams co-design and audit OpenVM, port circuits, and generate keys. In production, provers bundle zk proofs and send them to L1; the verifier checks them, and the rollup finalizes the state. Any change to the verifier goes through a timelock, and if a bug appears, you rotate keys and hot-patch. 2} Brevis. Here, your app gets smarter, while Brevis lifts the heavy load. With two different paths: - The Pure-ZK lane: Brevis fetches data, runs the circuit, posts a proof, your contract verifies, then acts - The AVS lane: Restaked operators propose a result; if no one challenges, your contract proceeds. 3} Lagrange With Lagrange, cross-chain interoperability is faster. The diagram shows a canonical L2 path, with Lagrange State Committees, bridging accelerates while maintaining security, as an on-chain verifier checks committee attestations for the target chain. In conclusion, the easiest integration process is the Brevis (AVS coChain path), while the hardest in this regard is the Axiom rollup-prover. Fastest time-to-result, Brevis AVS is fast for the same-chain app logic (short challenge window, no heavy proving). For bridging, Lagrange's fast mode is the lowest latency path. Finally, as regards the strongest to weakest security model, Axiom and Brevis have a tie with their cryptographic soundness. However, the AVS-based flows used by Brevis and Lagrange add slashing-backed crypto-economic guarantees that can be strong operationally, but are reliant on incentive alignment and honest-majority assumptions. Thanks for reading.