  The new technique of Speckle Stabilization has great potential to provide
optical imaging data at the highest angular resolutions from the ground. While
Speckle Stabilization was initially conceived for integral field spectroscopic
analyses, the technique shares many similarities with speckle imaging
(specifically shift-and-add and Lucky Imaging). Therefore, it is worth
comparing the two for imaging applications. We have modeled observations on a
2.5-meter class telescope to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the two
techniques. While the differences are relatively minor, we find that Speckle
Stabilization is a viable competitor to current Lucky Imaging systems.
Specifically, we find that Speckle Stabilization is 3.35 times more efficient
(where efficiency is defined as signal-to-noise per observing interval) than
shift-and-add and able to detect targets 1.42 magnitudes fainter when using a
standard system. If we employ a high-speed shutter to compare to Lucky Imaging
at 1% image selection, Speckle Stabilization is 1.28 times more efficient and
0.31 magnitudes more sensitive. However, when we incorporate potential
modifications to Lucky Imaging systems we find the advantages are significantly
mitigated and even reversed in the 1% frame selection cases. In particular, we
find that in the limiting case of Optimal Lucky Imaging, that is zero read
noise {\it and} photon counting, we find Lucky Imaging is 1.80 times more
efficient and 0.96 magnitudes more sensitive than Speckle Stabilization. For
the cases in between, we find there is a gradation in advantages to the
different techniques depending on target magnitude, fraction of frames used and
system modifications.
