Common vs Zama: Which privacy design fits you? (2026)

Common and Zama address different privacy problems. Common uses a shielder contract: you deposit funds and withdraw to a fresh wallet intended to break the visible link between addresses. Its core features are described as non-custodial and KYC-free. That flow is straightforward, but the anonymity set matters: Common’s TVL is about $1,672, so a small pool may weaken the privacy the shielder can provide.

Zama uses fully homomorphic encryption to keep token amounts and balances encrypted on public blockchains. Its products include confidential tokens, vaults and swaps. This is confidentiality, not full anonymity: Zama’s explorer support can show senders and recipients while amounts stay encrypted. In short, choose Common if your priority is separating wallet addresses; consider Zama if your priority is hiding financial amounts while retaining visible transaction participants.

Common is listed on Arbitrum and is also described as supporting Aleph Zero EVM. Its core flow is aimed at individual users who connect an existing EVM wallet, deposit into the shielder and withdraw to a new address. Common also describes shielded stablecoin support, including USDT and USDC, with a yield option. A mobile app is planned, but it is currently at the waitlist stage.

Zama’s public deployments are on Ethereum, although the project says its protocol can run on any L1 or L2. Its feature set is broader for developers and institutions: confidential tokens, vaults, swaps, an ERC-7984 token standard, an SDK and developer documentation. The project names use cases such as payments, payroll, DeFi and tokenized real-world assets. Its TVL is about $119.8 million, compared with about $1,672 for Common, but the two projects’ different designs mean TVL alone does not determine which is the better fit.

Neither project publishes a fee schedule. Common says fees can be paid in the token being shielded, so users do not need a separate native gas token for that fee. This does not eliminate underlying network fees: transactions on Arbitrum or Aleph Zero EVM still incur network costs. Common says any shielding, withdrawal or yield-related charges should be checked in the app before confirming.

Zama does not publish charges for shielding, unshielding, swaps or vault deposits. Users should check the Zama App and documentation for product-level fees and network gas costs before proceeding. The project does not specify whether encrypted computation adds costs beyond ordinary transfers. Do not assume either service is free based on the absence of a published price list; inspect the transaction details and confirm the total cost before signing.

Common states that its apps were audited by Kudelski Security and zkSecurity, but the reports are not public, so their scope and findings cannot be checked. DefiLlama lists zero audits. Common is non-custodial, but its shielder contract holds pooled user funds, and a small pool can limit anonymity. Its short track record is another reason to be cautious.

Zama has no public audit reports, and DefiLlama lists no audits. Its FHE-based contracts use a newer approach that carries cryptographic and implementation risks; depositing into a contract also creates smart-contract risk. Zama’s confidentiality features are not equivalent to anonymity, and its compliance-oriented design may not suit people seeking fully anonymous tools. Check local rules for privacy tools, and only deposit funds you can afford to lose. Common’s claimed audits are a positive signal, but neither option is risk-free.