I am, however, very much anti claims made by some Rust fans that take an empirical and universal nature and are simply not known to be true (e.g. it is true that the more memory safety guarantees the fewer the vulnerabilities - all else being equal - but it is quite simply logically incorrect to conclude from that that the best way to minimise vulnerabilities is to have more sound safety guarantees).
I think Rust is a fantastic fit for some people who want to do low-level programming, and a pretty bad fit for others (like me). Same goes for Zig or, really, almost any language. Obviously, neither one is inherently or universally superior to the other.
BTW, my enthusiasm for Zig is not because I like all of its design decisions, but mostly because it's so different from most other languages and, in some cases, its decisions run contrary to my personal inclination (e.g. with regards to encapsulation) that I'm fascinated to know how it works out. Rust, on the other hand, is less interesting for me to think about, because aside from the more intensive typechecking (that I'm already familiar with from other languages) the overall experience it offers is quite similar to C++. Maybe I won't like what Zig ends up becoming, but for someone who's seen so many languages, it's really interesting to come across something so fresh.