Hinkal vs Zama: Which privacy protocol fits? (2026)

Hinkal and Zama both aim to make blockchain activity confidential, but they approach the problem differently. Hinkal uses shielded addresses to hide transaction origin, destination and value, and offers private transfers, swaps and bridges across a broad list of networks. Its suite includes an app for existing wallets, a browser-extension wallet, developer tools and an enterprise treasury workspace. Viewing keys, selective disclosure and KYT checks form its compliance path.

Zama uses fully homomorphic encryption (FHE) to keep token amounts and balances encrypted. Its Ethereum products include confidential tokens, vaults and swaps, alongside the ERC-7984 token standard and developer tools. The approach is designed to preserve confidentiality while allowing institutional and DeFi use cases. Its public deployments are currently listed on Ethereum, so it has a narrower deployment footprint than Hinkal.

Hinkal is the broader option for users who need privacy across several ecosystems. Its listed networks include Ethereum, Solana, Tron, Arbitrum, Base, Polygon, BNB Chain and Optimism, as well as Robinhood Chain, Arc and Tempo. It also offers several ways to use the protocol, from an app that works with an existing wallet to an enterprise workspace and an SDK/API for integrations. How well each network is served is not published, and its TVL is about $268,112, so the shielded pool on each chain may be thin.

Zama’s listed public deployments are on Ethereum. Its products are more focused: confidential tokens, vaults and swaps, plus tools for developers adding encrypted balances to applications. Its TVL is about $119.8 million. Choose based on whether multichain reach or Ethereum-focused encrypted products matter more to you; the TVL figures alone do not establish how much privacy either protocol provides in a particular transaction.

Neither project publishes a fee schedule. Hinkal does not list prices for shielding, swaps, bridges or enterprise products. Its Prime treasury and integration products appear to be offered through a demo or partner portal, but the price is not published. Users should expect normal network gas on the chain they use and should check the app for any current protocol or swap fees before confirming.

Zama also does not publish charges for shielding, unshielding, swaps or vault deposits. Network gas applies, and any product-level fees should be checked in the app or documentation before a transaction. Encrypted computation may involve costs beyond an ordinary transfer, but Zama does not publish details. Since neither schedule is public, compare the transaction screen and product terms rather than assuming either protocol is cheaper.

Hinkal has two audits listed, but the auditors and findings are not published. Before depositing, look for the audit reports in its documentation. Its contracts and cryptographic privacy systems still carry implementation and exploit risk. The project describes viewing keys and KYT as compliance controls, so its privacy is not the same as being anonymous to everyone. Its relatively small TVL may also mean a smaller anonymity set, which can weaken privacy in practice.

Zama lists no audits, and audit reports are not published. It links to a Security Status page, which users should review. FHE-based contracts are a newer approach and carry cryptographic and implementation risk; deposits also involve smart-contract risk. Zama’s confidentiality should not be confused with anonymity: its explorer support can show senders and recipients while amounts remain encrypted. Neither project’s listed security information guarantees safety. Check local rules for privacy tools, and do not deposit more than you can afford to lose.

Choose Hinkal if you want a multi-chain privacy suite, prefer to use an existing wallet, or need private transfers and swaps alongside institutional controls. Its two listed audits are a point of distinction, but the auditors and findings are not published, and its TVL is much smaller than Zama’s. Check pool depth and the transaction costs on your chosen chain before using it.

Choose Zama if your priority is encrypted token balances, confidential vaults or swaps on Ethereum, or if you are building with its token standard and SDK. Its much higher listed TVL and live products may suit an Ethereum-focused use case, but it lists no audits and relies on newer FHE tooling. For either protocol, fees are not published and confidentiality does not remove smart-contract, regulatory or operational risks.