STARK Provers (e.g., StarkWare's StarkEx/StarkNet, Polygon Miden) excel at transparent trustlessness and scalability. They rely on collision-resistant hashes instead of trusted setups, providing long-term security. Their proof generation is highly parallelizable, enabling massive throughput. For example, StarkEx has demonstrated over 9,000 TPS on a single application-specific rollup (dYdX v3). However, this comes with larger proof sizes (45-200 KB) and higher on-chain verification costs on Ethereum.
LABS
Comparisons
STARK Provers vs SNARK Provers
A technical analysis comparing STARK and SNARK proving systems for ZK rollups. We evaluate performance, cost, security, and developer trade-offs to inform infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Proving Engine of ZK Rollups
A foundational comparison of STARK and SNARK proving systems, the cryptographic engines powering modern zero-knowledge rollups.
SNARK Provers (e.g., zkSync Era, Scroll, Polygon zkEVM) prioritize succinctness and Ethereum compatibility. Their proofs are extremely small (~200 bytes) and cheap to verify on-chain, making them cost-effective for frequent L1 settlement. They achieve this through elliptic curve cryptography and a one-time trusted setup ceremony (like the Powers of Tau). The trade-off is that proof generation is more computationally intensive and less parallelizable, often capping throughput for general-purpose VMs.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum scalability, quantum resistance, and avoiding trusted setups for a high-throughput appchain, choose STARKs. If you prioritize minimizing Ethereum gas fees for verification, achieving EVM-equivalence, and leveraging a mature toolchain (Solidity, Vyper), choose SNARK-based systems. The ecosystem is converging, with projects like Polygon using STARKs for recursion inside a SNARK final proof, blending both strengths.
tldr-summary
STARK Provers vs SNARK Provers
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between STARKs and SNARKs for zero-knowledge proof generation.
01
STARKs: Unmatched Scalability & Post-Quantum Security
No trusted setup required, making them inherently more trust-minimized. Prover time scales quasi-linearly with computation size (O(n log n)), enabling massive parallelization for high-throughput chains like Starknet. Resistant to quantum attacks due to reliance on hash functions (e.g., Rescue, Poseidon). This matters for long-term state security and high-volume L2 rollups.
O(n log n)
Prover Complexity
No Trusted Setup
Cryptographic Assumption
02
STARKs: Larger Proof Sizes & Higher On-Chain Costs
Proofs are significantly larger (~45-200 KB) compared to SNARKs, leading to higher on-chain verification gas costs on Ethereum L1. The FRI-based proving system is computationally intensive, often requiring specialized hardware (GPUs/FPGAs) for optimal performance. This matters for cost-sensitive dApps or protocols where frequent, cheap on-chain settlement is critical.
45-200 KB
Proof Size
03
SNARKs: Tiny Proofs & Efficient On-Chain Verification
Extremely small proof sizes (~200 bytes) enable ultra-low-cost on-chain verification, ideal for frequent state updates. Mature tooling ecosystem with libraries like Circom, Halo2, and Noir, backed by extensive audits. Faster prover times for smaller circuits. This matters for privacy-preserving transactions (e.g., Tornado Cash) and light-client bridges where gas efficiency is paramount.
~200 bytes
Proof Size
< $1
Typical Verify Cost
04
SNARKs: Trusted Setup & Theoretical Vulnerabilities
Require a trusted setup ceremony (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau), introducing a potential point of failure if compromised. Reliant on elliptic curve cryptography (e.g., BN254, BLS12-381), which is not quantum-resistant. Prover time can scale poorly (O(n^2)) for very large circuits. This matters for protocols requiring maximum decentralization and those planning for a post-quantum future.
Required
Trusted Setup
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
STARK Provers vs SNARK Provers
Direct comparison of key technical metrics and trade-offs for zero-knowledge proof systems.
| Metric | STARK Provers | SNARK Provers |
|---|---|---|
Requires Trusted Setup | ||
Proof Verification Time | < 10 ms | < 100 ms |
Proof Generation Time | ~1-10 sec | ~0.1-2 sec |
Proof Size | 45-200 KB | ~200 bytes |
Post-Quantum Security | ||
Primary Use Case | High-Throughput L2s (Starknet) | General-Purpose Privacy (Zcash, Aztec) |
PERFORMANCE & COST BENCHMARKS
STARK Provers vs SNARK Provers
Direct comparison of key technical and economic metrics for zero-knowledge proof systems.
| Metric | STARK Provers | SNARK Provers |
|---|---|---|
Proving Time (1M ops) | ~30 seconds | ~2 minutes |
Verification Time | < 10 ms | < 20 ms |
Trusted Setup Required | ||
Proof Size | 45-200 KB | ~200 bytes |
Quantum Resistance | ||
Gas Cost for On-Chain Verify | $5-20 | $0.50-5 |
pros-cons-a
KEY DIFFERENTIATORS
STARK Provers vs SNARK Provers
A data-driven comparison of the two dominant ZK proof systems, highlighting their core architectural trade-offs for protocol architects and engineering leads.
01
STARKs: Unmatched Scalability & Post-Quantum Security
No trusted setup required: STARKs (e.g., StarkWare's Cairo, Polygon Miden) rely on collision-resistant hashes, eliminating a major trust and ceremony overhead. Scalable proof generation: Proving time scales quasi-linearly with computation size, making them ideal for high-throughput L2s like Starknet and dYdX v4. Post-quantum resistant: Based on hash functions, not elliptic curves, offering long-term security guarantees.
~0.01¢
Proving Cost (StarkEx)
Post-Quantum
Security Basis
02
STARKs: Trade-Off of Larger Proof Sizes
Larger proof sizes: STARK proofs are typically 45-200 KB, compared to ~288 bytes for a Groth16 SNARK. This increases on-chain verification gas costs for L1 settlement. Higher verification complexity: While fast to prove, the on-chain verification logic can be more complex and expensive than optimized SNARK verifiers. This matters for frequent, low-value cross-chain attestations.
~100 KB
Avg. Proof Size
03
SNARKs: Ultra-Compact Proofs & Efficient Verification
Tiny, fixed-size proofs: Systems like Groth16 and PlonK produce proofs as small as 200-500 bytes, minimizing L1 settlement gas costs (critical for apps like Tornado Cash, zkSync Era). Mature tooling ecosystem: Widely adopted libraries (circom, halo2) and frameworks (Scroll, Aztec) offer extensive developer resources. Fast verification: On-chain verification is often a single pairing operation, costing ~500k gas.
< 1 KB
Proof Size
~500k gas
Verification Cost
04
SNARKs: Trusted Setup & Quantum Vulnerability
Requires trusted setup: Most SNARKs (excluding some recursive schemes) need a one-time, multi-party ceremony (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau), introducing procedural risk. Not quantum-safe: Reliance on elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) makes them vulnerable to future quantum attacks. Prover scalability limits: Proving time can scale super-linearly, creating bottlenecks for very large computational traces compared to STARKs.
ECC-Based
Cryptography
pros-cons-b
STARKs vs SNARKs
SNARK Provers: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for CTOs evaluating zero-knowledge infrastructure.
01
STARK Prover: Scalability & Post-Quantum Security
Massive scalability: STARKs (e.g., StarkWare's Cairo) can prove batches of millions of transactions, achieving ~1,000 TPS on L2s. Quantum-resistant: Relies on hash functions, not elliptic curves. This matters for long-term data integrity and high-throughput applications like decentralized exchanges (e.g., dYdX v3).
1,000+ TPS
StarkEx Throughput
Post-Quantum
Security Basis
02
STARK Prover: High On-Chain Gas Costs
Large proof sizes: A single STARK proof can be 45-200 KB, leading to high verification gas costs on Ethereum L1 (~600K-2M gas). This matters for frequent on-chain settlement or applications requiring cheap L1 verification. SNARKs are typically 10x smaller.
03
SNARK Prover: Compact Proofs & Mature Ecosystem
Tiny verification footprint: Groth16/PLONK proofs are ~200 bytes, enabling cheap L1 verification (< 200K gas). Broad tooling: Supported by Circom, Halo2, and libraries like arkworks. This matters for privacy-preserving L1 apps (e.g., Tornado Cash) and projects needing extensive developer support.
~200 bytes
Proof Size
1000+
Circom Circuits
04
SNARK Prover: Trusted Setup & Limited Scalability
Requires a trusted setup: Most SNARK systems (Groth16, PLONK universal setup) need a ceremony, introducing a trust assumption. Computational bottlenecks: Proving time scales less efficiently than STARKs for massive batches. This matters for permissionless protocols wanting minimized trust and ultra-high-throughput (>10k TPS) scenarios.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
STARK Provers for Scale & Security
Verdict: The definitive choice for high-throughput, trust-minimized applications. Strengths:
- Post-Quantum Security: Based on hash functions, resistant to quantum attacks, offering long-term safety for state channels and large-scale DeFi.
- Scalability: Proves millions of transactions in a single batch. Ideal for zkRollups (Starknet, Polygon Miden) needing to compress vast L2 state transitions.
- Transparent Setup: No trusted ceremony required, eliminating a critical trust assumption. Trade-off: Larger proof sizes (~45-200 KB) and higher on-chain verification gas costs than SNARKs.
SNARK Provers for Scale & Security
Verdict: Optimal for applications where on-chain verification cost is the ultimate constraint. Strengths:
- Succinct Proofs: Tiny proofs (~200 bytes) make on-chain verification (e.g., on Ethereum) extremely gas-efficient. Critical for frequent bridges (zkSync Era, Polygon zkEVM) and privacy apps (Aztec, Tornado Cash).
- Mature Ecosystem: Wider adoption with libraries like circom, snarkjs, and Halo2. Trade-off: Requires a trusted setup ceremony (MPC), introducing a procedural security risk.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between STARK and SNARK provers is a foundational decision that hinges on your protocol's specific performance, security, and cost profile.
STARK provers excel at generating proofs for massive computational batches with unparalleled scalability and post-quantum security. Their reliance on transparent (trustless) setups and fast, recursive composition allows them to process thousands of transactions per proof, as demonstrated by StarkWare's StarkEx scaling Ethereum to over 9,000 TPS for dYdX. The trade-off is that generating these large, complex proofs is computationally intensive, leading to higher on-chain verification gas costs, which can be a bottleneck for frequent, small-batch L1 settlement.
SNARK provers take a different approach by prioritizing succinctness and low-cost on-chain verification through trusted setups. This results in significantly smaller proof sizes (often <1KB vs. STARK's ~45KB) and cheaper L1 verification gas fees, a critical advantage for frequent state updates. Protocols like zkSync Era and Polygon zkEVM leverage this for cost-effective scaling. The trade-off is the requirement for a trusted setup ceremony (e.g., Powers of Tau) and the current lack of post-quantum resistance, introducing different trust and future-proofing considerations.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum scalability, quantum-resistant security, and avoiding trusted setups for a high-throughput L2 or validity rollup, choose STARKs (e.g., using StarkNet, Polygon Miden). If you prioritize minimizing on-chain verification costs and proof size for applications requiring frequent, cheap L1 finality, choose SNARKs (e.g., using Circom with Groth16, Plonky2). For many, a hybrid future using STARKs to prove SNARKs (as in Polygon zkEVM) may offer the optimal balance.
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