Trezor vs NGRAVE
Trezor wins on measured health — 8.66/10 against 7.93/10.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window.
| Measured | Trezor | NGRAVE |
|---|---|---|
| Status now | Not published | Not published |
| Score On what we could measure: 82% of the criteria weight for Trezor, 82% for NGRAVE. | 8.66/10 | 7.93/10 |
| Age | 13.7 yr | 8.7 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 111 ms | 622 ms |
| Median fix | — | — |
| Status feed | unknown | unknown |
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).
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).
No affiliate links or ads anywhere on this site. How this is funded · Methodology · Full hardware wallets ranking