Choosing the Right ZK Proof System: Groth16 vs PLONK vs STARK
Use Groth16 for fast on‑chain verification with a trusted setup, PLONK when you need a reusable universal setup across circuits, and STARK when you require transparent, quantum‑resistant proofs despite larger proof sizes.
Core Characteristics
Groth16 is a zk‑SNARK proof system that requires a per‑circuit trusted setup and produces very small proofs (about 200 bytes). Verification is fast, making it suitable for on‑chain verification where storage costs matter. It operates over elliptic curves such as BN254 or BLS12‑381 and can prove any R1CS circuit with quadratic complexity.
PLONK Advantages
PLONK replaces the need for separate trusted ceremonies for each circuit by using a universal setup that can be reused for many different circuits. This reduces operational overhead and cost, while maintaining proof sizes similar to Groth16 (around 200‑300 bytes) and verification speed comparable to Groth16. PLONK also supports multiple arithmetic constraints and integrates with various proving libraries.
STARK Trade‑offs
STARKs are transparent, requiring no trusted setup, which eliminates the risk of parameter leakage. However they produce larger proofs (roughly 10 KB) and verification is slower than SNARKs, making them less ideal for on‑chain use but valuable for off‑chain scaling solutions like rollups that need to batch many transactions. STARKs rely on hash‑based commitments and are considered quantum‑resistant.