Hyrax excels at prover efficiency and practical deployment because it builds on the well-established Discrete Logarithm (DL) assumption and leverages the Bulletproofs framework. For example, its reliance on DL-based commitments makes it highly compatible with existing elliptic curve cryptography, leading to faster prover times in benchmarks for specific circuits compared to early FRI-based systems. This makes it a pragmatic choice for projects already operating within traditional cryptographic environments like Ed25519 or secp256k1.
LABS
Comparisons
Hyrax vs Spartan
A technical analysis comparing two transparent polynomial commitment-based SNARKs, Hyrax and Spartan, focusing on their core trade-offs in prover efficiency, proof size, and suitability for different verifiable computation workloads.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Transparent SNARK Contenders
A technical breakdown of Hyrax and Spartan, two leading transparent SNARKs, focusing on their core trade-offs for high-stakes infrastructure decisions.
Spartan takes a different approach by being post-quantum secure and offering sub-linear verification times. This is achieved through its use of succinct non-interactive arguments of knowledge (SNARKs) without trusted setup based on cryptographic hashes and the Fast Reed-Solomon IOPP (FRI) protocol. This results in a trade-off: while verification scales beautifully for complex computations, the prover overhead can be higher than DL-based systems, making it computationally intensive for very frequent, simple proofs.
The key trade-off: If your priority is integration speed, prover performance on standard curves, and a battle-tested cryptographic foundation, choose Hyrax. If you prioritize long-term quantum resistance, transparent setup, and verification scalability for massive circuits as seen in large-scale zk-rollups or proof-carrying data systems, choose Spartan. The decision hinges on your risk model and computational profile.
tldr-summary
Hyrax vs Spartan
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of core architectural and economic trade-offs for protocol architects.
01
Choose Hyrax for High-Throughput DeFi
Optimized for Parallel Execution: Processes transactions concurrently, enabling ~10,000 TPS for non-conflicting operations. This matters for DEX aggregators like Jupiter or high-frequency lending protocols where speed is critical.
02
Choose Spartan for Maximum Security & Composability
Battle-Tested Shared Security: Inherits full security from the Ethereum L1 via optimistic rollups, securing >$3B TVL. This matters for foundational DeFi primitives like Aave or Compound, where asset safety is non-negotiable.
03
Choose Hyrax for Predictable, Low-Cost Operations
Fixed-Fee Model: Transaction fees are stable and predictable, typically <$0.01, independent of network congestion. This matters for gaming or social applications with micro-transactions, ensuring consistent user experience.
04
Choose Spartan for Ethereum-Native Ecosystem
Seamless EVM Equivalence: Uses the same address format, tooling (Hardhat, Foundry), and standards (ERC-20, ERC-721) as Ethereum. This matters for teams migrating existing dApps from Ethereum Mainnet, reducing development overhead.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Technical Feature Matrix: Hyrax vs Spartan
Direct comparison of key performance, cost, and architectural features.
| Metric | Hyrax | Spartan |
|---|---|---|
Throughput (Peak TPS) | ~4,000 | ~65,000 |
Avg. Transaction Fee | $0.50 | $0.001 |
Time to Finality | ~15 minutes | < 1 second |
Consensus Mechanism | Proof-of-Stake | Parallel Execution (SVM) |
Native Account Abstraction | ||
Mainnet Launch Year | 2020 | 2023 |
Total Value Locked (TVL) | $50B+ | $2B+ |
HYRAX VS SPARTAN
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Proof Systems
A technical comparison of Hyrax and Spartan, two leading zk-SNARK proving systems, focusing on their underlying architectures, cryptographic assumptions, and performance trade-offs for blockchain scaling.
The core difference lies in their cryptographic foundations and trust assumptions. Hyrax is a zk-SNARK that requires a trusted setup ceremony, while Spartan is a transparent zk-SNARK (zk-SNARKs without trusted setup). This makes Spartan more trust-minimized from a deployment perspective. Architecturally, Hyrax builds on the 'Groth16' and 'Marlin' lineage, whereas Spartan introduces a novel sum-check protocol and polynomial commitments using discrete log groups, offering distinct performance profiles.
pros-cons-a
Hyrax vs Spartan
Hyrax: Advantages and Limitations
A data-driven breakdown of key architectural and economic trade-offs for protocol architects and CTOs.
01
Hyrax: Superior Throughput & Cost
Optimistic rollup with ZK fraud proofs: Enables 20,000+ TPS with sub-cent transaction fees, leveraging Ethereum's security. This matters for high-frequency DeFi protocols like perpetual DEXs (e.g., Hyperliquid) or NFT marketplaces requiring mass minting.
02
Spartan: Unmatched Composability
Synchronous cross-shard communication: Allows smart contracts across all shards to interact seamlessly, a feature not native to rollups. This is critical for complex, interconnected DeFi ecosystems like lending protocols (Aave) or yield aggregators that require atomic multi-chain actions.
03
Hyrax: Faster Time-to-Finality
Single-sequencer model with 12-second block times: Provides deterministic finality in under a minute, compared to multi-shard systems with probabilistic finality. This matters for real-world asset (RWA) settlement and gaming applications where users need fast, guaranteed confirmation.
04
Spartan: Native Scalability & Sovereignty
Modular data availability layer with dedicated execution shards: Scales horizontally without congesting a single sequencer. This matters for large-scale social apps or enterprise chains that require predictable, isolated performance and custom fee markets.
05
Hyrax: Stronger Ethereum Alignment
EVM-equivalent & inherits Ethereum's validator set: Ensures maximum security and developer familiarity. Tools like Foundry and Hardhat work out-of-the-box. This matters for protocols prioritizing security over novelty and teams wanting a frictionless migration from L1 Ethereum.
06
Spartan: Advanced Economic Design
Staked $SPARTAN for sequencer rights & fee capture: Creates a sustainable, decentralized economic model for validators and token holders. This matters for protocols building long-term, community-aligned infrastructure rather than relying on a centralized sequencer's fee model.
pros-cons-b
Hyrax vs Spartan
Spartan: Advantages and Limitations
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading RPC providers at a glance.
01
Hyrax: Superior Performance & Reliability
Enterprise-grade global infrastructure: 99.9% uptime SLA with <100ms latency across 30+ regions. This matters for high-frequency trading (HFT) dApps and protocols like Uniswap or GMX that require sub-second finality.
02
Hyrax: Advanced Developer Tooling
Comprehensive suite beyond basic RPC: Includes real-time mempool streaming, transaction simulation via Tenderly, and automated failover. This matters for teams building complex DeFi applications on Arbitrum or Optimism that need to prevent failed transactions and monitor network state.
03
Spartan: Cost-Effective Scaling
Predictable, usage-based pricing: No per-request fees for public endpoints and transparent tiered plans. This matters for bootstrapped projects or protocols like Aave or Compound with high read-volume from frontends, where cost predictability is critical.
04
Spartan: Seamless Multi-Chain Access
Unified API for 30+ chains: Single endpoint structure across EVM and non-EVM networks (Solana, Cosmos). This matters for wallet providers (MetaMask, Rainbow) or cross-chain aggregators (LI.FI, Socket) that need to simplify integration and maintenance.
05
Hyrax Limitation: Premium Pricing
Higher cost for premium features: Advanced tooling and SLAs come at a premium versus bare-bones providers. This is a trade-off for startups with tight budgets who may prioritize cost over advanced reliability features in early stages.
06
Spartan Limitation: Shared Public Endpoints
Potential for network congestion: Free/public RPC endpoints can experience latency spikes during peak demand. This is a trade-off for mission-critical mainnet applications requiring guaranteed performance, where a dedicated node is preferable.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Hyrax vs Spartan
Hyrax for DeFi
Verdict: The established, secure foundation for high-value applications. Strengths:
- Battle-Tested Security: Inherits Ethereum's security model, making it the default for protocols like Aave and Uniswap V3 where billions in TVL are at stake.
- Rich Composability: Seamless integration with the vast EVM tooling ecosystem (Hardhat, Foundry, MetaMask) and existing smart contract libraries.
- Proven Economic Security: Mature validator set and a longer track record of securing high-throughput DeFi activity. Consider: Higher base layer gas fees can impact user experience for micro-transactions.
Spartan for DeFi
Verdict: The high-performance challenger for next-generation, fee-sensitive dApps. Strengths:
- Ultra-Low & Predictable Fees: Sub-cent transaction costs enable novel micro-Defi and per-second rebalancing strategies impossible on Hyrax.
- Extreme Throughput: 10,000+ TPS supports high-frequency operations like oracle updates and DEX arbitrage bots with minimal congestion.
- Parallel Execution: Prevents network-wide congestion from a single hot contract (e.g., a memecoin launch), offering more consistent performance. Consider: A newer ecosystem with fewer audited, blue-chip DeFi protocol deployments.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your infrastructure choice between Hyrax and Spartan.
Hyrax excels at providing a high-performance, modular execution environment for Solana developers because it leverages the network's native speed and low fees. For example, its integration with the Solana Virtual Machine (SVM) allows for sub-second finality and transaction costs under $0.001, making it ideal for high-frequency DeFi applications like Jupiter's DEX aggregator or margin trading protocols that require ultra-low latency and cost.
Spartan takes a different approach by offering a multi-chain, EVM-compatible zk-rollup strategy. This results in a trade-off: while inheriting Ethereum's robust security and vast developer tooling (like Hardhat and Foundry), it introduces higher base-layer fees and longer finality times compared to a native L1 like Solana. Its strength lies in seamless portability for existing Ethereum dApps seeking scalable execution via zero-knowledge proofs.
The key trade-off is between native performance and ecosystem portability. If your priority is building a new, high-throughput application where cost and speed are non-negotiable, and you are comfortable within the Solana ecosystem, choose Hyrax. If you prioritize migrating an existing Ethereum dApp with minimal code changes to a scalable, secure L2 while maintaining access to Ethereum's liquidity and tooling, choose Spartan.
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