STARKs are only faster than SNARKs at the prover level (1.6s vs 2.3s), while for verifiers the protocol is slightly slower (16ms vs 10ms).
If by shorter you mean size in bytes, Bulletproofs are only smaller than STARKs (1,300B vs 45,000B), while they are significantly larger than SNARKs (1,300B vs 288B)
Starks are almost better than Snarks all around
they require weaker crypto assumptions
don't require a trusted setup
post-quantum resistant (secure, won’t be attacked by a quantum computer)
But they have a major drawback, as in the proof is huge.
The time to verify is also remarkably larger in Starks than Snarks.
In the former, it grows in time O(poly log n), whereas for Snarks it is linear in the input size, which is just a small constant, especially in complex circuits. Remember that n here is the number of gates.
For example, take a circuit that proves you know the pre-image of a certain hash value.
The input will be the size of that input, which is 32 bytes if you're using SHA256.
For this function, though, the number of gates will be in the tens of thousands, and you can see how the verification time for the SNARK is negligible in comparison.
SNARK vs. STARK
