It's arguable that SHA-3 is better understood than SHA-2, at least in the open research community. The rationales behind every component of SHA-3 are well docum

It's arguable that SHA-3 is better understood than SHA-2, at least in the open research community. The rationales behind every component of SHA-3 are well documented, and the design is very conservative, both in structure and number of rounds. More so than SHA-2. It is in theory possible that a new technique could break SHA-3 and not SHA-2, but the opposite seems far more plausible.