front squat, high bar, low bar.
relatively speaking, low bar utilises the hamstrings more than high bar and front squats, which rely much more on the quads.
All things being equal, low bar squat should be the technique that enables you to lift the absolute maximum weight (unless you're particularly quad dominant and have weak hammies). This is because it takes advantage of eccentrically loading the hamstrings more than the high bar. Low bar usually also has a slightly wider stance that makes hitting parallel with minimal actual movement slightly easier, while also shifting a bit more weight onto the glutes and hammies. This means that the range of motion is also significantly shorter.
There are some schools of thought that say that low bar squats are inferior to high bar squats in terms of building strength because of the decrease range of motion and the fact that hamstrings can be strengthened with other exercises some as romanian deadlifts - indeed some powerlifters used to train high bar and compete low bar.
That's kinda controversial, but I would say that since switching over, I much prefer the high bar squat in training, because it's very clear where exactly to change direction (with the low bar you're kinda guessing where parallel is, whereas with high bar you just go down as low as possible), it naturally increases mobility, and it has better carry-over to the olympic lifts I'm trying to learn.
I kinda wish I'd never been taught the low bar squat to be honest. I've had to completely re-set my form and increase my mobility.