As of now, technically not so much. However, there is a technical/financial advantage over Incognito: its smart-contract solution. The exposure of PriFi (private DeFi) is still low. I don’t think this risk is so close but it exists.
Well, what is the difference? You may difference BSC (Secret) vs ETH (Incognito) in terms of transaction fees. Currently, Incognito support smart-contracts over ETH. Our pUniswap and pKyber apps use it. As you may guess, it isn’t used so much. Why? Probably, there are two reasons: high fees and slowness. What is the source of these problems? Short answer: Unshielding-smart contract execution-shielding. Long answer: Whenever a user requests a trade over pUniswap, first the sold coin is unshielded, and then Uniswap contract is executed. Finally, the requested coin or the sold coin is shielded depending on the result (successful/unsuccessful) of the trade. Let me move onto Secret. Its smart contract solution is native like EOS, Tezos, Tron etc. So it can keep the fees low. Of course, there are some barriers that it should pass. For example, its smart contract solution is not Ethereum-compatible, unlike BSC. This will make attracting the smart-contract developers difficult.
No good smart-contract solution, no survival I think one of the problems of Binance Chain (and DEX over it) was this. Some projects have passed from Ethereum to Binance Chain. However, this transition made them naked since Binance Chain didn’t have any smart-contract solution natively. Since CZ noticed this, he released the Ethereum-compatible BSC. Imho, in sum, we should find an effective, cheap solution for the private smart contracts.