Cairo Proofs (StarkNet) excel at generating proofs for complex, general-purpose computations with high throughput. Their core innovation is the STARK protocol, which uses transparent setup and post-quantum secure hashing. This enables StarkNet to achieve over 100 TPS on mainnet while maintaining robust security assumptions, as evidenced by its consistent performance and growing TVL in protocols like zkLend and Nostra.
LABS
Comparisons
Cairo Proofs vs SNARKs
A technical analysis comparing Cairo's STARK-based proving system with traditional SNARKs, focusing on performance metrics, cost structures, security assumptions, and the trade-offs critical for selecting a ZK-Rollup infrastructure.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Proving System Showdown for ZK-Rollups
A technical deep dive into the architectural and performance trade-offs between Cairo's proof system and traditional SNARKs for high-throughput, secure scaling.
Traditional SNARKs (e.g., Groth16, Plonk) take a different approach by prioritizing succinct proof sizes and fast verification, often at the cost of requiring a trusted setup for some constructions. This results in a key trade-off: SNARK-based rollups like zkSync and Scroll offer extremely low-cost on-chain verification and are often faster for simpler payment-type transactions, but their proving circuits can be less flexible for arbitrary logic without significant engineering overhead.
The key trade-off: If your priority is proving scalability for complex, stateful dApps (DeFi, gaming) and you value transparency, choose Cairo/STARKs. If you prioritize minimizing on-chain gas costs for verification and need compatibility with existing EVM tooling, choose a SNARK-based stack like those powering Polygon zkEVM or Linea.
tldr-summary
Cairo Proofs vs SNARKs
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of two leading proof systems for scalability and privacy. Choose based on your protocol's core requirements.
01
Cairo Proofs: Developer Experience
Specific advantage: CairoVM and Starknet OS provide a unified, Turing-complete environment for writing provable programs. This matters for teams building complex, stateful dApps (e.g., DeFi protocols like zkLend) who want to write logic and proofs in one high-level language without managing complex cryptographic circuits.
02
Cairo Proofs: Scalability & Cost
Specific advantage: STARKs enable massive batch proofs, scaling with the number of transactions. Proving costs are amortized, leading to sub-cent fees per transaction at scale. This matters for applications requiring ultra-high throughput (>1k TPS) and low, predictable costs, like gaming or mass-market social apps.
03
SNARKs: Proof Size & Verification Speed
Specific advantage: Groth16 and Plonk proofs are extremely compact (~200 bytes) and can be verified on-chain in milliseconds for ~500k gas. This matters for applications where on-chain verification cost and speed are critical, such as cross-chain bridges (e.g., zkSync Era) or private voting where proofs are stored on-chain.
04
SNARKs: Ecosystem & Tooling Maturity
Specific advantage: A mature, multi-chain ecosystem with battle-tested frameworks like Circom, Halo2, and libraries from 0xPARC. This matters for teams prioritizing a wide range of existing circuits, established audit patterns, and deployment flexibility across EVM chains (Polygon zkEVM), L2s, and app-chains.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Cairo Proofs vs SNARKs: Head-to-Head Comparison
Direct comparison of key technical and operational metrics for zero-knowledge proof systems.
| Metric | Cairo Proofs (StarkNet) | SNARKs (e.g., zkSync, Polygon zkEVM) |
|---|---|---|
Proving Time (Single Tx) | ~0.1 sec | ~1-3 sec |
Proof Size | 45 KB | ~200 bytes |
Trusted Setup Required | ||
Quantum Resistance | ||
EVM Bytecode Compatibility | ||
Recursive Proof Support |
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Cairo Proofs vs SNARKs: Performance & Scalability Benchmarks
Direct comparison of key technical metrics for Starknet's Cairo and general-purpose SNARKs.
| Metric | Cairo Proofs (Starknet) | General-Purpose SNARKs (e.g., zkSync, Polygon zkEVM) |
|---|---|---|
Proving System | STARK | SNARK |
Proving Time (Single Tx) | ~0.1 sec | ~0.5 sec |
Proof Size | 45 KB | 288 bytes |
Trusted Setup Required | ||
Quantum-Resistant | ||
Recursion Support | Native (Cairo VM) | Circuit-dependent |
Prover Hardware Acceleration | GPU (CUDA) | CPU/GPU (varies) |
pros-cons-a
Cairo/STARKs vs. SNARKs
Cairo Proofs (STARKs): Advantages and Limitations
A technical breakdown of StarkWare's Cairo VM and its underlying STARK proofs versus the SNARK ecosystem. Key differentiators in scalability, trust assumptions, and developer experience.
01
Cairo/STARKs: Unmatched Scalability
Prover efficiency scales quasi-linearly: Proof generation time grows ~n log(n) with computation size (n), vs. SNARK's ~n log²(n) or worse. This enables massive batch proofs for L2s like StarkNet, processing 100k+ TPS worth of transactions in a single proof. Ideal for high-throughput DeFi (dYdX v3) and gaming applications.
~n log(n)
Prover Scaling
02
Cairo/STARKs: Quantum-Resistant & Trustless Setup
Relies on cryptographic hashes only, making it post-quantum secure. No requirement for a trusted setup ceremony (unlike Groth16, PLONK). This eliminates a critical operational risk and audit burden for protocols like Sorare and Immutable X. The trust model is transparent and perpetual.
Transparent
Trust Setup
03
SNARKs: Smaller Proofs & Faster Verification
Proof sizes are constant and tiny (~200-300 bytes for Groth16) vs. STARKs (~45-200 KB). This enables cheaper on-chain verification on L1 (Ethereum), critical for light clients and cross-chain bridges. Verification is often sub-second, making it suitable for real-time applications.
~200 bytes
Proof Size
< 1 sec
Verify Time
04
SNARKs: Mature Ecosystem & Tooling
Broad language and framework support: Circom, Noir, Halo2, and zk-SNARK libraries are battle-tested across ZK rollups (zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM) and privacy apps (Tornado Cash). Established proving networks (e.g., =nil; Foundation) offer outsourced proving. This reduces development risk versus Cairo's more monolithic stack.
5+
Major Frameworks
pros-cons-b
Cairo Proofs vs SNARKs
SNARKs: Advantages and Limitations
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocol architects choosing a proving system.
01
Cairo Proofs: Prover Efficiency
Optimized for complex logic: Cairo's AIR (Algebraic Intermediate Representation) is designed for Cairo VM execution, enabling efficient proving of arbitrary smart contract logic. This matters for general-purpose ZK-Rollups like Starknet, where proving costs for complex dApps are critical.
02
Cairo Proofs: Scalability
STARK-based scaling: Leverages transparent (trustless setup) STARK proofs, offering post-quantum security and theoretically unlimited scalability via recursive proofs. This matters for high-throughput L2s aiming for millions of TPS, as seen in StarkEx's proven capacity (~9k TPS for dYdX).
03
SNARKs: Prover Speed & Cost
Faster, cheaper verification: SNARKs (e.g., Groth16, Plonk) generate smaller proofs with faster on-chain verification (~10ms, ~200k gas). This matters for cost-sensitive L1 applications like private transactions (Zcash) or light client bridges, where low Ethereum gas costs are paramount.
04
SNARKs: Ecosystem & Tooling
Mature developer stack: Supported by established frameworks like Circom, Halo2, and Noir, with extensive libraries and auditing. This matters for teams prioritizing security and existing knowledge, enabling faster development of custom ZK-circuits for applications like Tornado Cash.
05
Cairo Proofs: Limitation - Ecosystem Lock-in
VM-specific: Cairo proofs are tied to the Cairo VM and StarkWare's stack. This matters for teams wanting multi-chain flexibility or those not building on Starknet, as the toolchain is less portable than circuit-based SNARK frameworks.
06
SNARKs: Limitation - Trusted Setup
Requires ceremony: Most SNARK systems (except recent ones like Halo2) need a trusted setup, creating a potential single point of failure. This matters for protocols demanding maximal decentralization, as seen in the ongoing efforts for perpetual powers-of-tau ceremonies.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Cairo Proofs for Developers
Verdict: Superior for building complex, provable logic with a familiar programming model. Strengths:
- High-Level Language: Cairo is a Turing-complete language (Cairo 1.0 is Rust-like), making it easier to write complex logic for validity rollups (e.g., Starknet) compared to low-level circuit definitions.
- Prover Performance: The STARK-based Cairo prover is optimized for parallel execution, scaling efficiently with computational complexity.
- Tooling & Ecosystem: Integrated with Starknet's toolchain (
starknet-devnet,scarb,protostar).
SNARKs for Developers
Verdict: Ideal for applications requiring small, fast-to-verify proofs and leveraging mature, modular libraries.
- Circuit Design: Requires defining constraints in low-level frameworks like Circom, Halo2, or Noir. Steeper learning curve for complex apps.
- Verifier Efficiency: SNARK proofs are extremely small (~200 bytes) and verify in milliseconds, perfect for on-chain verification (e.g., zkSync, Scroll).
- Modular Stack: Can mix and match proving backends (Groth16, Plonk, Nova) and tooling for specific needs.
Code Example (Mindset Difference):
rust// Cairo (Starknet) - Business logic focus fn update_state(value: felt252) -> felt252 { let new_value = value * 2; new_value }
circom// Circom (SNARK) - Constraint system focus template Double() { signal input in; signal output out; out <== in * 2; }
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
A strategic breakdown to guide infrastructure decisions between Cairo's proof system and traditional SNARKs.
Cairo's STARK-based proofs excel at generating proofs for complex, general-purpose computation with high throughput. Because STARKs do not require a trusted setup and are post-quantum secure, they are architecturally aligned with decentralized, long-term security needs. For example, Starknet's architecture can scale to thousands of TPS for its L2, with proof generation times optimized for batched transactions. The Cairo VM's native support for recursive proofs enables seamless proof aggregation, a key advantage for L3 appchains and high-volume dApps.
Traditional SNARKs (e.g., Groth16, Plonk) take a different approach by prioritizing ultra-fast verification and minimal proof size, often at the cost of a more complex trusted setup. This results in a critical trade-off: superior efficiency for verifiers (like Ethereum L1) versus potential centralization risks and computational constraints. Projects like zkSync and Aztec leverage SNARKs to achieve sub-20ms verification times and proof sizes under 1 KB, making them ideal for payment-focused or privacy applications where on-chain gas costs are paramount.
The key architectural divergence is verifier optimization versus prover flexibility. SNARKs are engineered for the verifier, minimizing L1 gas costs. STARKs, as implemented in Cairo, are engineered for the prover, enabling more expressive and scalable computation chains.
Consider Cairo and STARKs if your priority is building a sovereign appchain (L3), requiring high computational complexity (e.g., a full-fledged on-chain game), or adhering to a trust-minimized, post-quantum security model without a trusted setup. This is the choice for maximalist decentralization and long-term protocol resilience.
Choose traditional SNARKs when your application is verification-sensitive, such as cross-chain bridges, private payments, or any system where minimizing on-chain gas costs for end-users is the non-negotiable constraint. They are the proven, efficient choice for applications that are less computationally intensive but require the cheapest possible L1 settlement.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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