When compared in isolation, yes. But such mechanisms aren't free; they add to both language complexity and compilation time, two things that can have a negative impact on correctness. So it's impossible to say which approach leads to more correct programs overall without empirical study.
We see similar tradeoffs of soundness in formal verification as well. We're not talking about exactly the same thing here (because affine type safety is compositional) but the general principle is the same: soundness has a cost, and it is not necessarily the most efficient way of achieving a required level of correctness.
Anyway, I think that both Rust and Zig have very interesting approaches to safety, but I don't think we know enough to claim one is more effective than the other at this time.
We see similar tradeoffs of soundness in formal verification as well. We're not talking about exactly the same thing here (because affine type safety is compositional) but the general principle is the same: soundness has a cost, and it is not necessarily the most efficient way of achieving a required level of correctness.
Anyway, I think that both Rust and Zig have very interesting approaches to safety, but I don't think we know enough to claim one is more effective than the other at this time.