Hi, Guido, I will distinguish PysoniQ from mypyc, based on what's available from mypyc at this time (at GitHub). Mypyc "compiles mypy-annotated, statically typed Python modules into CPython C extensions" whereas PysoniQ does not require any static typing. "Mypyc compiles what is essentially a Python language variant using 'strict' semantics" whereas PysoniQ is not a language variant, and has no special semantics. "Mypyc supports a subset of Python," whereas PysoniQ is not a subset and uses only standard CPython code, without alteration. Mypyc compiles to C and uses a C compiler, whereas PysoniQ translates directly to assembly language and requires no third-party compiler. Translating a single language directly to assembly gives the best optimizations because most of the commonly used compilers, like GCC, LLVM and Clang, use an intermediate language intended for many languages, and compiles to a number of target architectures. There can be a performance price for this, for which direct translation is the best solution. I don't see any metrics on the mypy page at GitHub, so I can't speak about any difference in speed. While PysoniQ only targets Intel/AMD x86-64 because it's by far the most dominant platform now, we plan to support ARMv8 as soon as possible (assuming it takes off). That means we need instructions for each architecture, but we want the best performance possible so we're prepared to do that when competing architectures like ARMv8 become viable. Regards, Mark