Pros of SEAL

• Easier to use and more beginner-friendly
• Better documentation and examples
• More active development and frequent updates

Cons of SEAL

• Limited support for advanced FHE operations
• Less flexible for customization and research purposes

Code Comparison

SEAL

Encryptor encryptor(context, public_key);
Ciphertext encrypted;
encryptor.encrypt(plaintext, encrypted);

HElib

Ctxt encrypted(publicKey);
publicKey.Encrypt(encrypted, plaintext);

Summary

SEAL is more user-friendly and well-documented, making it a better choice for beginners and industry applications. It has a more active development cycle, ensuring regular updates and improvements.

HElib, on the other hand, offers more advanced FHE operations and greater flexibility for research and customization. It provides a wider range of cryptographic primitives and allows for more fine-grained control over the underlying algorithms.

The code comparison shows that SEAL has a slightly more intuitive syntax, with separate objects for encryption and key management. HElib's approach is more compact but may require a deeper understanding of the library's structure.

Both libraries have their strengths, and the choice between them depends on the specific requirements of the project and the user's expertise in homomorphic encryption.

Pros of Concrete

• More user-friendly and accessible for developers new to FHE
• Focuses on practical applications and performance optimization
• Provides higher-level abstractions for easier implementation

Cons of Concrete

• Less mature and battle-tested compared to HElib
• May have a more limited range of supported cryptographic schemes
• Potentially less flexible for advanced users requiring fine-grained control

Code Comparison

HElib example:

#include <helib/helib.h>

void example() {
    Context context = helib::ContextBuilder<helib::BGV>().m(4095).bits(500).build();
    SecKey secret_key(context);
    secret_key.GenSecKey();
    const PubKey& public_key = secret_key;
}

Concrete example:

use concrete::*;

fn example() -> Result<(), CryptoAPIError> {
    let (client_key, server_key) = gen_keys(PARAM_MESSAGE_2_CARRY_2_KS_PBS);
    let clear = 42;
    let cipher = client_key.encrypt(clear);
    Ok(())
}

The code examples demonstrate that Concrete offers a more straightforward API with higher-level abstractions, while HElib provides more detailed control over the cryptographic parameters. Concrete's Rust implementation may also appeal to developers seeking memory safety and modern language features.

Pros of fully-homomorphic-encryption

• Easier to use and more accessible for beginners
• Provides a higher-level abstraction for FHE operations
• Offers integration with TensorFlow for machine learning applications

Cons of fully-homomorphic-encryption

• Less mature and less extensively tested compared to HElib
• More limited in terms of advanced FHE features and optimizations
• Smaller community and fewer resources available

Code Comparison

HElib:

#include <helib/helib.h>

Ctxt encrypted_result(publicKey);
encrypted_result.addCtxt(ciphertext1);
encrypted_result.multByConstant(5);

fully-homomorphic-encryption:

import numpy as np
from fully_homomorphic_encryption import tfhe

encrypted_result = tfhe.add(ciphertext1, tfhe.scalar_mul(5, ciphertext2))

Summary

HElib is a more established and feature-rich library for homomorphic encryption, offering advanced optimizations and a wider range of FHE operations. It's better suited for experienced developers and researchers working on complex FHE applications.

fully-homomorphic-encryption, on the other hand, provides a more user-friendly approach with its integration with TensorFlow and higher-level abstractions. It's ideal for developers who want to experiment with FHE in machine learning contexts or those new to homomorphic encryption.