Railgun excels at deep integration with existing DeFi ecosystems by using zero-knowledge proofs (zk-SNARKs) to create private pools on top of established L1s and L2s like Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Polygon. This allows users to interact privately with native protocols such as Uniswap, Aave, and Curve without requiring protocol-level changes. For example, its ~$30 million Total Value Locked (TVL) and support for private stablecoin transfers and swaps demonstrate its utility within the existing DeFi stack.
LABS
Comparisons
Railgun vs Incognito
A technical comparison of two leading application-layer privacy systems. This analysis breaks down the architectural trade-offs between Railgun's shielded pools on existing L1/L2s and Incognito's privacy-focused sidechain, focusing on multi-asset support, proof systems, and integration complexity for developers and protocols.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for DeFi Privacy
Railgun and Incognito represent two dominant, yet architecturally distinct, approaches to on-chain privacy for DeFi, forcing CTOs to choose between ecosystem integration and sovereign scalability.
Incognito takes a different approach by operating as a standalone, privacy-focused Layer 1 blockchain with its own consensus mechanism and native token (PRV). This strategy results in a more sovereign and scalable privacy environment, achieving higher theoretical throughput for private transactions. The trade-off is a more isolated ecosystem; while assets can be shielded into Incognito via bridges, direct private interaction with external DeFi smart contracts is not native, requiring development within its own chain.
The key trade-off: If your priority is enabling private interactions with the broadest set of existing Ethereum-based DeFi protocols and liquidity, choose Railgun. Its zk-SNARK system is purpose-built for this composability. If you prioritize maximum transaction throughput and scalability for private transfers within a dedicated, application-specific environment, choose Incognito and its independent blockchain architecture.
tldr-summary
Railgun vs Incognito
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two leading privacy solutions.
01
Railgun: EVM-Native Privacy
Zero-Knowledge privacy on existing L1/L2s: Uses zk-SNARKs to shield transactions directly on Ethereum, Polygon, BSC, and Arbitrum. This matters for DeFi power users who need to interact with protocols like Uniswap, Aave, or Curve without exposing their wallet history. No need to bridge to a separate chain.
EVM+
Supported Chains
02
Railgun: Programmable Privacy (zk-Privacy)
Smart contract privacy via Private Proofs of Innocence: Allows private execution of logic (e.g., private swaps, lending) without revealing the underlying assets. This matters for institutional compliance and DAO treasuries that need to prove funds are not from sanctioned addresses while keeping the portfolio balance confidential.
03
Incognito: Privacy-First Blockchain
Dedicated, high-throughput privacy chain: A standalone L1 using sharding and confidential assets (pTokens) for scalable private transactions. This matters for users prioritizing maximum anonymity sets and low fixed fees (~$0.001) for simple transfers, away from the congestion and high gas costs of mainnet.
~500 TPS
Network Capacity
04
Incognito: Cross-Chain Privacy via Bridge
Wrapped asset model for broad compatibility: Converts BTC, ETH, BNB, etc., into private pAssets via its decentralized bridge. This matters for multi-chain portfolios seeking a unified privacy layer, especially for Bitcoin privacy, which is not natively supported by Railgun's EVM focus.
PRIVACY PROTOCOL COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Railgun vs Incognito
Direct comparison of key privacy, interoperability, and operational metrics for zero-knowledge privacy protocols.
| Metric | Railgun | Incognito |
|---|---|---|
Privacy Standard | zk-SNARKs | zk-SNARKs |
Native Chain Support | EVM (Ethereum, BSC, Polygon, Arbitrum) | Incognito Chain (Sidechain) |
Cross-Chain Asset Privacy | ||
Avg. Transaction Cost (Ethereum) | $10 - $50 | N/A |
Throughput (Private TPS) | ~15 | ~100 |
Governance Token | RAIL | PRV |
Requires Wrapped Assets |
pros-cons-a
PRIVACY PROTOCOL COMPARISON
Railgun vs Incognito: Core Trade-offs
A data-driven breakdown of two leading on-chain privacy solutions. Choose based on your protocol's security model, supported assets, and integration complexity.
01
Railgun's Strength: EVM-Native Integration
Seamless Smart Contract Privacy: Uses zero-knowledge proofs (zk-SNARKs) directly within Ethereum, Polygon, BSC, and Arbitrum. This matters for DeFi protocols needing private pools or shielded voting, as it doesn't require a separate chain. Integrates via a simple SDK.
5+
EVM Chains
02
Railgun's Strength: Regulatory Compliance Tools
Built-in Proof of Innocence: Offers optional, cryptographically verified compliance proofs. This matters for institutions and regulated dApps that must demonstrate funds are not from sanctioned addresses, without revealing the entire transaction graph.
03
Incognito's Strength: Cross-Chain Privacy Hub
Asset-Agnostic Shielding: Its own privacy-focused blockchain acts as a hub, accepting deposits from Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero, and others into private, wrapped versions (pBTC, pETH). This matters for users seeking maximum asset coverage and privacy for non-EVM native coins.
50+
Assets
04
Incognito's Strength: Decentralized Validator Set
Permissionless Node Network: Relies on ~800 validators using a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus. This matters for censorship resistance and liveness, as there's no central relayer or operator that can be targeted for downtime or transaction filtering.
05
Railgun's Trade-off: Relayer Dependency
Centralized Relayer Bottleneck: Users typically rely on a public relayer to post transactions, creating a potential single point of failure for availability. This matters for protocols requiring 100% uptime guarantees, though the system allows for permissionless relayers.
06
Incognito's Trade-off: Liquidity Fragmentation
Wrapped Asset Silos: Privacy is achieved by moving assets onto a separate chain (pAssets), fragmenting liquidity from mainnets. This matters for DeFi users and integrators who then face bridge risks and lower liquidity pools compared to native-layer solutions.
pros-cons-b
KEY DIFFERENTIATORS
Railgun vs Incognito: Pros and Cons
A balanced look at the technical trade-offs between two leading privacy solutions. Use this to decide which aligns with your protocol's security model and user experience goals.
02
Railgun's Con: Relayer Dependency & Fee Model
Third-Party Relayer Requirement: Users must pay a relayer (in RAIL or ETH) to submit private transactions on their behalf, adding complexity and a variable cost layer. This matters for UX-focused projects where gas abstraction and predictable, minimal fees are critical for mainstream adoption.
04
Incognito's Con: Liquidity Fragmentation & Bridge Risk
Wrapped Asset Model & Bridge Trust: Assets are custodied and bridged to the Incognito chain (e.g., pETH), introducing counterparty risk at the bridge and fragmenting liquidity from major DeFi pools. This matters for institutional integrators with high security thresholds and those needing deep liquidity from Ethereum mainnet.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: Decision by Use Case
Railgun for DeFi
Verdict: Superior for high-value, cross-chain private transactions. Strengths: Integrates directly with major DeFi protocols like Uniswap, Lido, and Aave via its Privacy SDK. Supports private deposits, swaps, and yield generation on Ethereum, Polygon, and BNB Chain. Uses zk-SNARKs for robust, audited cryptographic privacy. Ideal for institutions and whales requiring compliance-ready privacy (Proof of Innocence) for treasury management or OTC trades. Considerations: Relayer fees apply and interaction requires using the Railgun smart contract system, which can have higher base-layer gas costs.
Incognito for DeFi
Verdict: Better for a self-contained, privacy-focused DeFi ecosystem. Strengths: Operates as its own blockchain with a built-in DEX and pDEX for private swapping of assets like BTC, ETH, and ERC-20s via bridges. Lower, predictable fees as it avoids mainnet gas. Suits users prioritizing complete transactional anonymity within a dedicated app, trading across multiple asset types without leaving the chain. Considerations: Less direct integration with established Ethereum DeFi blue chips. Liquidity and variety are confined to the Incognito pDEX and its bridged assets.
RAILGUN VS INCOGNITO
Technical Deep Dive: Proof Systems & Architecture
A technical comparison of Railgun and Incognito's core privacy architectures, focusing on their underlying proof systems, trust models, and how they integrate with their respective ecosystems.
Railgun offers stronger cryptographic security guarantees. It uses zk-SNARKs (specifically the Groth16 proving system) with a trusted setup ceremony, providing mathematically verifiable privacy on the underlying L1 (Ethereum, Polygon, etc.). Incognito uses a modified version of zk-SNARKs within its own consensus layer, introducing different trust assumptions in its validator network. For users prioritizing battle-tested, audited cryptography that inherits Ethereum's security, Railgun is superior. For those comfortable with a dedicated privacy chain's security model, Incognito is an alternative.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Final Recommendation
A final assessment of Railgun and Incognito, framing the core architectural trade-offs to guide infrastructure decisions.
Railgun excels at providing robust, auditable privacy for established DeFi ecosystems by leveraging zero-knowledge proofs on underlying L1/L2 chains like Ethereum and Polygon. Its key strength is composability; private assets can interact directly with protocols like Uniswap or Aave via its Relay system without breaking anonymity. For example, its zk-SNARK-based proof system has been formally verified, and the protocol secures significant value, with a Total Value Locked (TVL) consistently in the tens of millions, demonstrating trust from sophisticated users.
Incognito takes a different approach by operating as a standalone, privacy-focused Layer 1 blockchain with its own validators and native token (PRV). This strategy results in a trade-off of sovereignty for breadth: it can privately wrap and transact any asset (from BTC to ERC-20s) within its own ecosystem, but at the cost of being isolated from the native DeFi composability of the chains it wraps. Its throughput is determined by its own consensus, claiming up to 100 TPS, which is higher than base Ethereum but comes with the burden of bootstrapping its own security and liquidity.
The key trade-off is between native-chain integration and cross-chain privacy autonomy. If your priority is enabling private interactions within the deep liquidity and established tooling of major ecosystems like Ethereum or Arbitrum, choose Railgun. Its model is optimal for protocols needing regulatory-compliant privacy (via its Proof of Innocence) or developers building privacy layers into existing dApps. If you prioritize creating a fully private environment for a diverse portfolio of assets across multiple chains, and can accept building within a more contained ecosystem, choose Incognito.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall