Comparison · Updated
Common vs Hinkal: Which privacy dApp fits you? (2026)
Common is a simpler option for shielding assets on Arbitrum, while Hinkal offers more chains and products, plus compliance tools. Both have small shielded pools, and neither publishes a fee schedule.
Side by side
Common vs Hinkal at a glance
| Common | Hinkal | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Privacy dApp | Privacy protocol and product suite |
| Chains | Arbitrum listed; its summary also names Aleph Zero EVM | Eleven listed chains, including Ethereum, Solana, Tron and major EVM networks |
| TVL | About $1,672 | About $268,112 |
| Token | No token | No token |
| Fees | Fees not published; says fees can be paid in the shielded token | Fees not published; network gas and any app fees should be checked before confirming |
| Security and audits | Claims audits by Kudelski Security and zkSecurity; reports unavailable, and DefiLlama lists zero audits | Two audits listed; auditors and findings not named publicly |
| Ease of use | Ease-of-use score: 7.5/10; connect, deposit and withdraw to a new address | Ease-of-use score: 7/10; app supports private sending and swapping from an existing wallet |
| Standout features | Shielder deposits, TraceBreaker and stablecoin yield | Shielded transfers, swaps and bridges, with wallet, SDK and enterprise products |
| Best for | Someone seeking a straightforward privacy flow on Arbitrum | Someone seeking broad chain coverage or privacy tools for an institution or integration |
| Privacy caveat | Very low TVL may mean a thin anonymity set | TVL is higher, but the shielded pool on each chain may still be thin |
How Common and Hinkal differ
Common focuses on a core flow: connect an EVM wallet, deposit into a shielder contract, then withdraw to a fresh address. It also offers TraceBreaker and says stablecoins such as USDT and USDC can be shielded with a yield option. Common describes its core features as non-custodial and usable without KYC.
Hinkal is broader in scope. It supports private transfers, swaps and bridges across many chains, and offers an app for existing wallets, a browser-extension wallet, developer tools and an enterprise treasury product. Its viewing keys, selective disclosure and KYT checks provide a compliance path, but they also mean its privacy model is not simply anonymity from every party.
For a focused Arbitrum privacy flow, Common is easier to assess. For cross-chain activity or institutional and developer use, Hinkal has more product options.
Fees and costs
Neither project publishes a fee schedule. Common says users can pay fees in the token they are shielding, so a separate gas token may not be needed for that fee. Its homepage and FAQ do not state the amount or explain all possible shielding, withdrawal or yield-related charges. Network fees still apply to the underlying transactions.
Hinkal does not publish shielding, swap, bridge or enterprise pricing either. Its enterprise and integration products appear to be handled through a demo or partner process, but public pricing is not stated. Users should also account for normal gas on the chain they use and check the app for any protocol or swap charges before confirming.
There is not enough published pricing to say which is cheaper. Compare the full transaction preview in the relevant app, including network gas and any service charge, before moving funds.
Safety and privacy limits
Common says its apps were audited by Kudelski Security and zkSecurity, but does not link the reports; DefiLlama lists zero audits. That leaves the audit scope and findings difficult to verify. Hinkal has two audits listed, but does not publicly name the auditors or summarise the findings. In both cases, look for the reports and understand their scope before depositing. An audit does not remove smart-contract risk.
Privacy also depends on the size of the pool and how funds move. Common's TVL is about $1,672, so its anonymity set may be thin. Hinkal's TVL is about $268,112, but its pool on any individual chain may still be small. Reusing addresses or moving funds in obvious patterns can weaken unlinkability.
Privacy tools can face regulatory scrutiny. Hinkal describes compliance controls, but how screening works in each product is not detailed. Check the rules where you live.
User experience and product fit
Common has a more direct user journey for someone who wants to shield assets and withdraw to a new wallet address. It also says fees can be paid in the token being shielded, and the core is described as non-custodial, with users keeping their own keys. Its main limitation is scale: the very low TVL can weaken practical anonymity, and its listed chain coverage is narrow. The mobile app is only at the waitlist stage.
Hinkal is designed for more than one kind of user. Individuals can use its app or wallet, developers can use its SDK and API, and institutions can explore Hinkal Prime. This breadth brings more choices and a more involved compliance model. Its many listed chains are useful, but the quality of support on each is not stated.
Neither publishes fees, so the transaction flow and costs should be checked before use.
Verdict: Common or Hinkal?
Choose Common if you want a focused, non-custodial shielding flow and primarily use Arbitrum. Its token-based fee option may simplify payment, but its very low TVL is a significant privacy limitation, and audit reports are not public. Choose Hinkal if you need broader chain coverage, private swaps and bridges, developer integrations or institutional controls. Its TVL is higher, though each chain may still have a thin pool, and its audit details are not fully public. Neither is a clear choice for users prioritizing published fees or independently checkable audit findings.
Frequently asked questions
Which has more TVL?
Hinkal has the higher listed TVL, about $268,112, compared with about $1,672 for Common. A larger pool can support a broader anonymity set, but TVL alone does not guarantee privacy.
Which project has published audits?
Common says its apps were audited by Kudelski Security and zkSecurity, but the reports are not public and DefiLlama lists zero audits. Hinkal has two audits listed, but does not publicly name the auditors or findings.
Which is cheaper to use?
Neither publishes a fee schedule. Check the app for any protocol, swap, bridge or yield-related charges and the network gas cost before confirming a transaction.
Which is better for compliance needs?
Hinkal offers viewing keys, selective disclosure and KYT checks as compliance controls. That means its privacy model includes ways to disclose or screen activity; Common describes a privacy-first core but does not list comparable controls.