Supersonic excels at raw proving speed and hardware efficiency because it leverages a transparent, non-trusted setup SNARK (Spartan) optimized for modern multi-core CPUs and GPUs. For example, benchmarks on commodity AWS c6i.metal instances show Supersonic generating proofs for large circuits in minutes, offering a clear path for high-throughput applications like zkRollup sequencers or private smart contracts requiring low latency. Its transparent setup eliminates the ceremony risk and operational overhead associated with trusted setups.
LABS
Comparisons
Supersonic vs PLONK
A technical comparison between the transparent, post-quantum secure Supersonic SNARK and the widely adopted, efficient universal SNARK, PLONK. We analyze the trade-offs between cryptographic assumptions, proof size, and practical deployment for protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Transparency vs. Efficiency Trade-Off
The choice between Supranational's Supersonic and Aztec's PLONK defines a foundational architectural decision between raw proving speed and cryptographic transparency.
PLONK takes a different approach by prioritizing universal and updatable trusted setups. This results in a powerful trade-off: a single, reusable ceremony (like the Perpetual Powers of Tau) secures an infinite number of circuits, fostering a broad ecosystem of interoperable tools (e.g., Noir, zkSync). However, this comes at the cost of higher proving times and more complex arithmetic, often requiring specialized hardware (FPGAs, ASICs) for competitive performance in production environments.
The key trade-off: If your priority is proving speed, lower operational complexity, and transparency, choose Supersonic. This is ideal for applications where finality latency is critical or where managing a trusted setup is undesirable. If you prioritize ecosystem interoperability, a universal proof system, and are willing to invest in specialized proving hardware, choose PLONK. This suits protocols building within established ZK toolchains or those requiring frequent circuit upgrades without new ceremonies.
tldr-summary
Supersonic vs PLONK
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A high-level comparison of two leading SNARK proving systems, focusing on their core architectural trade-offs and ideal application scenarios.
01
Supersonic's Edge: Proving Speed
Optimized for recursive composition: Uses a FRI-based STARK with transparent setup, enabling extremely fast proof generation for large-scale computations. This matters for high-throughput L2s like StarkEx (e.g., dYdX, Immutable X) requiring sub-second proof times for thousands of transactions.
02
Supersonic's Trade-off: Proof Size
Larger proof footprints: STARK proofs are typically kilobytes in size, compared to PLONK's hundreds of bytes. This matters for on-chain verification where calldata costs are critical, or for light clients with stringent bandwidth constraints.
03
PLONK's Edge: Proof Size & On-Chain Efficiency
Ultra-compact SNARK proofs: Enables efficient on-chain verification with minimal gas costs. This is the standard for EVM-compatible L1s & L2s (e.g., zkSync Era, Scroll, Aztec) where saving calldata is paramount for user affordability.
04
PLONK's Trade-off: Trusted Setup & Prover Complexity
Requires a universal trusted setup (Powers of Tau): Introduces a one-time ceremony with cryptographic trust assumptions. Prover complexity is also higher, impacting hardware requirements. This matters for teams prioritizing transparency-by-default or needing to minimize prover infrastructure cost.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Supersonic vs PLONK: Zero-Knowledge Proof Comparison
Direct comparison of key technical metrics and ecosystem features for two leading ZK-SNARK proving systems.
| Metric | Supersonic (Mina Protocol) | PLONK (Aztec, Zcash) |
|---|---|---|
Proving System Type | Recursive ZK-SNARK | Universal ZK-SNARK |
Trusted Setup Required | ||
Proof Size (Constant) | ~22 KB | ~1 KB |
Primary Use Case | Entire blockchain state | Private transactions, scaling |
Key Adoption | Mina Protocol | Aztec, Zcash, Polygon zkEVM |
Developer Language | OCaml | Rust (bellman), C++ |
ZK PROOF SYSTEM COMPARISON
Supersonic vs PLONK: Performance & Cost Benchmarks
Direct comparison of key technical metrics for zero-knowledge proof systems.
| Metric | Supersonic (Mina Protocol) | PLONK (Multiple Chains) |
|---|---|---|
Proof Size (KB) | ~22 KB (constant) | ~400 KB (variable) |
Prover Time (Tx) | ~200 ms | ~2-5 seconds |
Verifier Time | < 10 ms | < 100 ms |
Recursive Proof Support | ||
Universal Trusted Setup | ||
Mainnet Production Use | Mina Protocol | Aztec, ZkSync Era, others |
pros-cons-a
ZK PROOF SYSTEM COMPARISON
Superscalar (Supersonic) vs. PLONK: Pros and Cons
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for protocol architects choosing a proving system dependency.
01
Superscalar: Proving Speed
Optimized for parallel execution: Leverages modern multi-core CPUs and GPUs for massive parallelism. This matters for high-throughput applications like centralized exchanges (e.g., dYdX v4) or gaming where proving latency is critical.
02
Superscalar: Hardware Efficiency
Reduced memory footprint: Designed to avoid large trusted setups and memory-intensive operations. This matters for cost-sensitive deployments and environments where hardware constraints exist, enabling more validators to participate.
03
Superscalar: Ecosystem Maturity
Smaller developer pool: As a newer system, it has fewer battle-tested implementations and tooling (e.g., Circom, Noir) compared to PLONK. This matters for teams needing extensive documentation and community support.
04
PLONK: Universal Trusted Setup
Single, reusable ceremony: A one-time trusted setup (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau) can support any circuit up to a bounded size. This matters for rapid protocol iteration and teams that want to avoid managing ceremony logistics for each update.
05
PLONK: Ecosystem & Tooling
Extensive integration: Supported by major frameworks like Halo2 (Zcash, Scroll), Noir (Aztec), and zkEVM toolchains. This matters for teams building complex private smart contracts or zkRollups who need proven libraries and compiler support.
06
PLONK: Prover Overhead
Higher computational cost: The universal setup and polynomial commitments can lead to larger proof sizes and slower proving times for simple circuits. This matters for ultra-low-latency applications where every millisecond of proving time impacts user experience.
pros-cons-b
Supersonic vs PLONK
PLONK: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two leading universal zk-SNARK constructions.
01
Supersonic's Key Strength
Unmatched prover speed: Uses the Marlin proving system, which is significantly faster than PLONK's original implementation. This matters for high-throughput applications like zkRollups (e.g., zkSync Era) where block generation time is critical.
02
Supersonic's Key Trade-off
Complex trusted setup: Requires a circuit-specific trusted setup for each new application, creating ongoing operational overhead and potential security bottlenecks. This is a major hurdle for teams wanting to deploy custom logic frequently.
03
PLONK's Key Strength
Universal & Upgradable Trusted Setup: Its universal and updatable trusted setup (e.g., Perpetual Powers of Tau ceremony) is a one-time, reusable event for all circuits. This enables rapid deployment of new dApps on networks like Aztec, Mina, and Polygon zkEVM without new ceremonies.
04
PLONK's Key Trade-off
Higher proving overhead: The flexibility of universality comes with computational cost, leading to slower prover times and larger proof sizes compared to optimized, circuit-specific systems. This impacts cost and latency for end-users.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: Decision Guide by Use Case
Supersonic for Developers
Verdict: Choose for high-throughput, general-purpose L2s where developer experience and EVM compatibility are paramount. Strengths:
- EVM-Equivalence: Uses a standard MIPS-based VM, enabling seamless porting of Solidity/Vyper contracts from Ethereum. Tools like Foundry and Hardhat work out-of-the-box.
- Prover Performance: The STARK-based prover is written in Rust, offering high performance and easier integration into modern tech stacks compared to complex cryptographic toolchains.
- Developer Tooling: Backed by Polygon, it benefits from a mature ecosystem including Polygonscan, dedicated SDKs, and comprehensive documentation.
PLONK for Developers
Verdict: Choose for applications requiring maximal cryptographic flexibility, custom circuits, or integration with specific ZK ecosystems like Aztec or Zcash. Strengths:
- Universal Setup: A single, updatable trusted setup ceremony supports a wide variety of circuits, reducing initial overhead for new projects.
- Circuit Design Flexibility: Ideal for building custom privacy-preserving applications (e.g., shielded transactions) or novel cryptographic primitives not suited to a general-purpose VM.
- Ecosystem Libraries: Access to libraries like
halo2(Rust) andsnarkjs(JavaScript) for implementing custom proving systems.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A decisive breakdown of the performance, security, and ecosystem trade-offs between the two dominant ZK-proof systems.
Supersonic (STARKs) excels at ultra-high throughput and long-term security because its reliance on collision-resistant hashes (like SHA) is considered quantum-resistant and doesn't require a trusted setup. For example, StarkWare's StarkEx and Starknet have demonstrated >9,000 TPS on a single app-chain and settled over $1 trillion in cumulative volume, showcasing its scalability for high-frequency dApps and institutional-grade settlement layers.
PLONK (and its variants like Halo2) takes a different approach by prioritizing universal and updatable trusted setups and developer ergonomics. This results in a trade-off: while requiring a one-time, multi-party ceremony, it enables smaller, faster proofs and a more flexible proving system. This has made it the backbone of major ecosystems like zkSync Era, Aztec, and Mina Protocol, where proof size and recursive composition are critical.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximum scalability, quantum-resistant security, and avoiding trusted setups, choose Supersonic (STARKs). This is ideal for high-volume L2s, perps DEXs, and applications where auditability is paramount. If you prioritize smaller proof sizes, efficient recursion for L1 verification, and a mature, multi-ecosystem toolchain (e.g., Circom, Noir), choose PLONK. This suits general-purpose zkEVMs, privacy-preserving applications, and protocols where on-chain gas costs for verification are a primary constraint.
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