We explore the performance and advantages/disadvantages of using unconditionally stable explicit super time-stepping (STS) algorithms versus implicit schemes with Krylov solvers for integrating parabolic operators in thermodynamic MHD models of the solar corona. Specifically, we compare the second-order Runge-Kutta Legendre (RKL2) STS method with the implicit backward Euler scheme computed using the preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) solver with both a point-Jacobi and a non-overlapping domain decomposition ILU0 preconditioner. The algorithms are used to integrate anisotropic Spitzer thermal conduction and artificial kinematic viscosity at time-steps much larger than classic explicit stability criteria allow. A key component of the comparison is the use of an established MHD model (MAS) to compute a real-world simulation on a large HPC cluster. Special attention is placed on the parallel scaling of the algorithms. It is shown that, for a specific problem and model, the RKL2 method is comparable or surpasses the implicit method with PCG solvers in performance and scaling, but suffers from some accuracy limitations. These limitations, and the applicability of RKL methods are briefly discussed. arXiv:1610.01265v1 [cs.CE] 5 Oct 2016 the linear case), or Newton-Krylov methods (for nonlinear operators) [7].This paper seeks to compare the basic advantages, disadvantages, performance, and parallel scaling of two classes of methods (implicit and super time-stepping) by using a representative algorithm of each class. The chosen algorithms are 1) The implicit Backwards-Euler scheme solved with the Preconditioned Conjugate Gradient method (BE+PCG) and 2) The explicit second-order Runge-Kutta Legendre (RKL2) super time-stepping method [8,9]. The criteria for the comparisons consists of looking at accuracy validation, the ease/difficulty of the method's formulation and implementation, the features and limitations of each method, their overall performance (e.g. the number of iterations/sub-steps needed for integrating each large timestep, the computational cost of each iteration/sub-step), and the methods' parallel performance including communication/synchronization requirements and their ability to scale to large numbers of processors.The two methods are used to integrate the most time-consuming parabolic operators of our model: Spitzer anisotropic thermal conduction and artificial kinematic viscosity. Since the PCG method is only applicable to linear operators, the thermal conduction operator is linearized using lagged diffusivity [10] (i.e. we fix the temperature-dependent part of the diffusion coefficient using the previous time-step's temperature values).A previous comparison between PCG and the factored RKC STS method [11] for a 1D diffusion test case using the RAMSES code was done in Ref. [12], where the authors found the STS method to be much faster (and more accurate) than their PCG method. Comparisons between RKL2 and a Newton-Krylov method using GMRES and with a multigrid solver was done for several test problem...