Provider at a glance
- Category
- Privacy Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- aztec.network
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 54 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Aztec Network
Privacy L2 with private smart contracts
Privacy Tools
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 8 privacy tools in the published ranking
54
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Aztec Network right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability6/10 here; Penumbra scores 7
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy3/10 here; Zama Confidential Tokens scores 4
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage1/10 here; Zama Confidential Tokens scores 4
- Audit currency and admin keys2/10 here; Fluidkey scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best privacy tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Aztec Network cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Aztec Network?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Aztec Network
Compare all 4- 5Penumbra5 points above · stronger on pt security custody (4 against 2)59
- 6Zama Confidential Tokens4 points above · stronger on pt anonymity set (4 against 1)58
- 8FluidkeyLevel on score · stronger on pt security custody (5 against 2)54
For your setup
Find out if Aztec Network fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Aztec Network lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best privacy toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Aztec Network ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (10.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
306+5.766.08#4/8Loading evidence…
253+2.403.08#4/8Loading evidence…
251+0.803.510#6/8Loading evidence…
202+1.285.06#8/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Zama Confidential Tokens, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 52–56 and ranks #7–#8
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Aztec Network’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Zama Confidential Tokens+258#7 → #6
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Zama Confidential Tokens+359#7 → #5
Live anonymity set and measurable usage 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes Zama Confidential Tokens+359#7 → #5
Audit currency and admin keys 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes Zama Confidential Tokens+358#7 → #6
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability 6 → 5 on its ladder · Fluidkey passes it−152#7 → #8
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy 3 → 2 on its ladder · Fluidkey passes it−153#7 → #8
Live anonymity set and measurable usage 1 → 0 on its ladder · Fluidkey passes it−153#7 → #8
Smallest climb: cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability 6 → 8 passes Zama Confidential Tokens, #6.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage — 1/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Audit currency and admin keys — 2/10 against a category best of 6/10
Record watch-outs
- Aztec has a shutdown record, and it is the most instructive fact in the whole category. Aztec Connect stopped accepting deposits on 21 March 2023 and the sequencer was switched off on 31 March 2024, yet in 2026 the deprecated RollupProcessorV3 was drained of $2.1M (908.99 ETH, 270,513 DAI, 167.89 wstETH plus yvDAI, yvWETH, LUSD and yvLUSD) via a proof-verification mismatch in processRollup, where the verification path decoded every transaction in a batch while the L1 settlement path processed only the subset set by numRealTxs. Aztec Labs holds no admin keys and could neither pause nor upgrade the contracts. The live chain was unaffected, but sunsetting a shielded pool does not retire its risk.
- What the page actually says is 'The network remains in alpha, and further bugs may surface as usage grows' — and, cutting the other way, that V5 'resolves critical vulnerabilities found in Alpha V4'. The uncomfortableFinding headline 'Aztec is shipping a network it openly describes as knowingly vulnerable' is materially stronger than the source supports and must be softened to the alpha-status quote alone. Read again 15 September 2026: on 7 August 2026 Aztec disclosed a flaw in the V5 proving system ('This finding places V5 funds, applications, and contract state at risk.'), and L2BEAT now records that Aztec v5 has a known critical proving-system vulnerability, with a fix planned for v6.
- Aztec's own completion post says '202 participants ran the software — of which 176 were VALID'. 176 is the valid-contribution count, not the participant count. The post describes a 32-day public phase and gives no 25 Oct 2019 – 2 Jan 2020 calendar range, and states the ceremony comprised ~100 million points in total with no per-participant figure.
Competitive position
Where Aztec Network leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#7 / 87.7 of 30 · best 17.6
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Aztec Network leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage#6 / 8
- Audit currency and admin keys#8 / 8
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Fluidkey#8 of 8 · score 54 · same score
Aztec Network leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability6 vs 4
Fluidkey leads on
- Audit currency and admin keys5 vs 2
Scenario cost: Fluidkey has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Zama Confidential Tokens#6 of 8 · score 58 · 4.0 points ahead
Aztec Network leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability6 vs 4
Zama Confidential Tokens leads on
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy4 vs 3
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage4 vs 1
- Audit currency and admin keys3 vs 2
Largest single reason Zama Confidential Tokens is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Zama Confidential Tokens has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Penumbra#5 of 8 · score 59 · 5.0 points ahead
Aztec Network leads onNo scored criterion
Penumbra leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability7 vs 6
- Audit currency and admin keys4 vs 2
Largest single reason Penumbra is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Penumbra has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 54 · gap 26.0Why Railgun ranks above Aztec Network
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 26.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRailgunGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight7.717.6−25.7, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisRailgunPoints
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · w3068−1.92, worse
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · w2538−4.00, worse
Live anonymity set and measurable usage · w2517−4.80, worse
Audit currency and admin keys · w2026−2.56, worse
Net5480−26.0
Your scenario
Aztec Network is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 15 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #7 to #8 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiabilitystrength 6 · weight 30Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Compliance signal without collapsing privacystrength 3 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Live anonymity set and measurable usagestrength 1 · weight 25Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Audit currency and admin keysstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—15 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Contract failure (Aztec Network 2/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit currency and admin keys · 20%
- Verification failure (Aztec Network 6/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · 30%
- Regulatory failure (Aztec Network 3/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · 25%
- Information failure (Aztec Network 1/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Live anonymity set and measurable usage · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Aztec states that Alpha V5 brings the average cost of a fully private token transfer to under $0.05. Fees are paid in Fee Juice, obtained by bridging the AZTEC token; apps may sponsor fees or accept other tokens.Aztec Network — Introducing Alpha V5 (blog, 21 July 2026) ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDAztec Network — Introducing Alpha V5 (blog, 21 July 2026) ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Aztec Network: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 54, #7 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt privacy_tools:aztec_network_privacy:2026.10.18:33d51dce1302
Are you Aztec Network? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.