Aztec SDK excels at enabling complex, programmable privacy for Ethereum applications through its zk-SNARK-based rollup architecture. This allows developers to build private DeFi, voting, and gaming dApps with composable smart contracts, leveraging Ethereum's security. For example, the Aztec Connect bridge facilitated over $100M in private volume before sunsetting, demonstrating demand for on-chain privacy. Its focus on ZK rollups and a TypeScript SDK makes it ideal for teams wanting to embed privacy into existing EVM workflows.
LABS
Comparisons
Aztec SDK vs Zcash SDK: A Technical Comparison for Builders
This analysis compares the Aztec SDK for building private smart contracts on Ethereum with the Zcash SDK for integrating shielded transactions. We evaluate architecture, developer experience, cost, and ideal use cases for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Privacy Infrastructure Decision
Choosing between Aztec and Zcash SDKs requires understanding a fundamental trade-off between programmability and battle-tested simplicity.
Zcash SDK takes a different approach by providing a simpler, dedicated toolkit for private payments and asset transfers. Its strength lies in its Sapling protocol, which has secured billions in value with over six years of mainnet uptime, offering robust, audited privacy for straightforward transactions. This results in a trade-off: while easier to integrate for basic asset shielding, it lacks the generalized smart contract capabilities for building complex private applications, operating more as a standalone privacy layer than a composable infrastructure.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building novel, composable private dApps (e.g., private AMMs, lending) and you need deep Ethereum integration, choose Aztec SDK. If you prioritize proven, simple privacy for payments or asset transfers with maximum security and minimal complexity, choose Zcash SDK.
tldr-summary
Aztec SDK vs Zcash SDK
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for protocol architects choosing a privacy stack.
01
Aztec SDK: Programmable Privacy
Full-stack EVM integration: Enables private smart contracts (zkApps) on Ethereum L1 and L2s using Noir. This matters for building private DeFi (e.g., Aztec Connect), voting, and confidential business logic.
EVM
Target Environment
02
Aztec SDK: Scalable Privacy
ZK-rollup architecture: Batches private transactions off-chain, settling proofs on L1. This matters for applications requiring high throughput of private interactions, reducing on-chain data and cost per user.
Rollup
Scaling Model
03
Zcash SDK: Battle-Tested Cryptography
ZKP standard-bearer: Implements the proven zk-SNARKs (Sapling) used to secure ~$1B+ in shielded value for over 7 years. This matters for projects prioritizing maximal, audited cryptographic security for simple asset transfers.
7+ years
Mainnet Proven
04
Zcash SDK: Simpler Asset Privacy
Focused UTXO model: Optimized for private payments (zcashd, light clients). This matters for wallets, exchanges, or applications needing straightforward send/receive privacy without smart contract complexity.
UTXO
Privacy Model
PRIVACY SDK COMPARISON
Aztec SDK vs Zcash SDK: Head-to-Head Comparison
Direct comparison of key architectural and performance metrics for two leading privacy-focused blockchain SDKs.
| Metric / Feature | Aztec SDK | Zcash SDK |
|---|---|---|
Primary Privacy Model | ZK-Rollup (zk.money) | zk-SNARKs (Sapling/Orchard) |
Default Transaction Privacy | Full (balance & amount) | Shielded (optional) |
Smart Contract Support | ||
Throughput (Shielded Tx) | ~300 TPS (on L2) | ~40 TPS (on L1) |
Avg. Shielded Tx Cost | $0.10 - $0.50 | $0.01 - $0.10 |
Development Language | TypeScript/Noir | Rust/C++ |
EVM Compatibility | Partial (via bridges) |
pros-cons-a
PRIVACY SDK COMPARISON
Aztec SDK vs Zcash SDK: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for developers building private applications on Ethereum and Zcash.
02
Aztec SDK: Ethereum Integration
Native L2 scaling on Ethereum: Leverages Ethereum's security and liquidity while providing private transactions with ~$0.10 fees. This matters for protocols that require EVM compatibility and access to mainnet assets like DAI or ETH without bridging to another chain.
~$0.10
Avg. Private Tx Fee
03
Zcash SDK: Battle-Tested Cryptography
Proven zk-SNARKs (Sapling): Uses the well-audited, decade-old cryptography that secures over $1B in ZEC. This matters for applications where cryptographic security and a simple, singular focus on private value transfer are paramount.
10+ years
Protocol Maturity
05
Aztec SDK: Higher Complexity Cost
Steeper learning curve: Requires understanding of Noir, circuit development, and L2 rollup concepts. This matters for teams with limited ZK expertise or those building simple payment apps where Zcash's straightforward model is sufficient.
06
Zcash SDK: Limited Functionality
No smart contract support: Cannot build complex dApps; functionality is restricted to private transfers of the native ZEC asset. This matters for developers wanting to create private AMMs, loans, or NFTs, which are impossible on the base Zcash chain.
pros-cons-b
PROS AND CONS
Aztec SDK vs Zcash SDK
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading privacy infrastructure stacks. Choose based on your application's core requirements.
01
Aztec SDK: Programmable Privacy
Full EVM Composability: Build private smart contracts (zkApps) that interact with public L1 state. This matters for DeFi protocols (e.g., private DEXs, lending) and institutional applications requiring complex, programmable logic on Ethereum.
02
Aztec SDK: High-Throughput Scaling
Rollup Architecture: Batches private transactions onto Ethereum, achieving ~100 TPS and reducing costs per private action. This matters for high-volume applications where public chain gas fees for individual privacy (like Zcash) would be prohibitive.
03
Zcash SDK: Battle-Tested Cryptography
Mature zk-SNARKs (Halo2): Leverages the same proven cryptography securing ~$1B+ in ZEC. This matters for asset-focused privacy where auditability and security are paramount, as used by wallets like ZecWallet and Zingo!.
04
Zcash SDK: Simpler Asset Model
Native Private Token (ZEC): Optimized for private payments and transfers of a single, high-liquidity asset. This matters for payment applications, remittances, and simple value transfer without the complexity of a general-purpose smart contract environment.
05
Aztec SDK: Complexity & Audit Burden
Steep Learning Curve: Developers must master Noir (Aztec's language) and a novel hybrid public/private state model. This matters for teams with tight timelines or those lacking deep zk expertise, increasing development time and audit costs.
06
Zcash SDK: Limited Smart Contract Scope
No General-Purpose Logic: Primarily designed for asset shielding and transfer. This matters for applications needing private governance, conditional logic, or composability with DeFi legos, which are not natively supported.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: Use Case Scenarios
Aztec SDK for DeFi
Verdict: The premier choice for private, on-chain DeFi primitives. Strengths: Enables fully private transactions and shielded liquidity pools via its zk-rollup architecture. Supports private token transfers, private DEX swaps (e.g., zk.money), and private lending. Integrates natively with Ethereum L1 for composability with mainnet assets and contracts like Uniswap or Aave via bridges. Key Metric: Transaction privacy with Ethereum-level security. Trade-off: Higher complexity for application logic due to zero-knowproof circuit design. Best for projects where financial privacy is a non-negotiable feature, not just an option.
Zcash SDK for DeFi
Verdict: A specialized tool for private payments, not generalized DeFi. Strengths: Provides robust, battle-tested zk-SNARKs (Sapling) for private base-layer transfers. Excellent for integrating simple, shielded payment functionality into a wallet or service. Limitation: No smart contract capability on Zcash L1. To build DeFi, you must bridge to another chain (losing native privacy) or rely on limited scripting. The SDK is optimized for the Zcash chain's specific transaction types. Use Case: Ideal if your DeFi project only requires a private deposit/withdrawal rail into a larger, transparent system.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between two leading privacy-focused development kits.
Aztec SDK excels at enabling programmable privacy for complex applications because its zk-rollup architecture allows for private smart contract execution. For example, its Noir language enables developers to build private DeFi primitives like zk.money, which has processed over 150,000 private transactions. The SDK's focus on Ethereum L2 integration means applications inherit Ethereum's security while achieving ~300 TPS with sub-$1 fees, making it ideal for building private AMMs, voting systems, and confidential DAOs directly on the mainnet.
Zcash SDK (ECC's Zebra or Zcashd) takes a different approach by prioritizing maximized, battle-tested privacy for simple value transfer. This results in a trade-off: it offers the gold standard of zk-SNARKs (Sapling protocol) for shielding transactions but lacks native smart contract programmability. Its strength is in its ~8-year mainnet security audit and its use in wallets like ZecWallet and Nighthawk, focusing on private payments with a simpler UTXO model rather than a generalized execution environment.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building a new, privacy-first application with custom logic (e.g., a private DEX or game), choose Aztec SDK for its developer tooling and L2 scalability. If you prioritize integrating proven, maximal privacy for payments or asset transfers into an existing wallet or service, choose Zcash SDK for its simpler API and unparalleled security track record. Consider the Aztec stack for innovation on Ethereum; opt for Zcash's libraries for robust, specialized privacy in payments.
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