OneKey vs Trezor
OneKey wins on measured health — 9.8/10 against 8.66/10. Note the coverage gap: we measured 100% of the criteria for OneKey and 82% for Trezor. Some of that gap is the finding — a service that publishes less can be measured less.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window.
| Measured | OneKey | Trezor |
|---|---|---|
| Status now | Operational | Not published |
| Score On what we could measure: 100% of the criteria weight for OneKey, 82% for Trezor. | 9.8/10 | 8.66/10 |
| Age | 7.7 yr | 13.7 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 351 ms | 111 ms |
| Median fix | — | — |
| Status feed | statuspage | unknown |
OneKey
9.8 / 10100% measuredLive 7.7 yr (since founding (2019), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Publishes a machine-readable incident archive (statuspage) — its whole record can be checked by anyone, including against us.
Median 351 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No incidents at all in the 90 days its feed covers — we read the feed and it is empty.
Trezor
8.66 / 1082% measuredLive 13.7 yr (since founding (2013), 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 111 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).
No affiliate links or ads anywhere on this site. How this is funded · Methodology · Full hardware wallets ranking