Which SNARK construction should I use?

There are many different SNARK constructions which have tradeoffs in performance and security. This page gives an overview of some of the important criteria to have in mind when selecting a scheme.


For many applications, it is important for SNARKs to be non-malleable. Intuitively, a SNARK is non-malleable if seeing proofs doesn't help you produce proofs on new statements.

A bit more in detail, a SNARK construction is non-malleable if it is impossible to modify a proof p which verifies against input x into a proof p' which verifies against an input x', unless you could have done so without seeing (p, x).

The technical phrase for this kind of non-malleability is simulation extractable.

When do I need non-malleability?

In applications where the witness or part of the witness should remain secret, you probably need non-malleability. There are techniques for achieving the same security while still using a malleable SNARK, but they are best left to the experts.

In practice, there is only a small performance penalty to using a non-malleable SNARK so unless one is confident one doesn't need it, there is no harm in using such a SNARK.

Setup type

This is one of the biggest practical considerations to keep in mind when selecting a SNARK construction. Some SNARKs require a "setup" which involves either a trusted party or group of parties (one of whom you can trust) running a computation to generate keys for a SNARK. This is the much publicized "ceremony" as was done for ZCash.

There are two kinds of setups:

  1. Universal. Universal setups only need to be performed once and the resulting keys can be re-used for all future SNARK programs.
  2. Per-program. Per-program setups must be run once per SNARK program.

Universal setups are much more convenient, but SNARK constructions with per-program setups have better performance.

There are also SNARKs with no setup at all. In general these SNARKs have much larger proof sizes: 50-200kB compared to 100s of bytes for SNARKs with setup.


The following efficiency characteristics are important to keep in mind when selecting a SNARK construction:

  • Prover time. How long does generating a proof take?
  • Proof size. How large is each proof?
  • Verifier time. How long does it take to check a proof?

There are other performance criteria that are of interest if one intends to use recursive SNARKs, but that is outside the scope of this document.

Overview of the landscape

Let's evaluate some of the existing SNARK constructions according to our criteria. Performance descriptions for some of the parameters will remain subjective until someone gets around to running a proper, fair benchmark. There are many holes in the below table, so please make a PR if you are so moved :)

ConstructionSetupNon-malleableProver timeProof sizeVerifier time
Groth16Per-programNoExcellent100-300 bytes1-10ms
Bowe--Gabizon18Per-programYesExcellent100-300 bytes1-10ms


In this document, by "no setup", I mean a transparent setup, which in practice amounts to a choice of a hash function like SHA256, blake2s, etc.