NGRAVE vs BitBox
NGRAVE wins on measured health — 7.93/10 against 7.85/10.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window.
| Measured | NGRAVE | BitBox |
|---|---|---|
| Status now | Not published | Not published |
| Score On what we could measure: 82% of the criteria weight for NGRAVE, 82% for BitBox. | 7.93/10 | 7.85/10 |
| Age | 8.7 yr | 11.7 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 622 ms | 91 ms |
| Median fix | — | — |
| Status feed | unknown | none |
NGRAVE
7.93 / 1082% measuredLive 8.7 yr (since founding (2018), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
A status page exists but publishes no feed we could parse — readable, not auditable. Part of that may be our blind spot (we read three platforms).
Median 622 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No incident feed we can read, so no repair time to compute.
Status transparency: A status page exists but publishes no feed we could parse — readable, not auditable. Part of that may be our blind spot (we read three platforms).
BitBox
7.85 / 1082% measuredLive 11.7 yr (since founding (2015), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
Median 91 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No incident feed we can read, so no repair time to compute.
Status transparency: No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
Anyone who needs to know when it breaks: no status feed, so you find out it is down by discovering it yourself.
No affiliate links or ads anywhere on this site. How this is funded · Methodology · Full hardware wallets ranking