Kiln vs Figment
Kiln scores 9.82 out of 10 and Figment 9.34 in the [staking platforms ranking](/ratings/staking/), on data collected October 19, 2026, with 100% of the score measured for both. Each wins one criterion: Kiln publishes a full incident archive, Figment answered our probe faster. Status transparency carries more weight, so Kiln comes out 0.48 points ahead.
Kiln scores higher: 9.82/10 against 9.34/10. It leads on 1 of 4 criteria, Figment on 1.
Criterion by criterion
Same category, same weights, heaviest criterion first. Open a row for each side’s reasoning and evidence.
Track record30% of the scoreLevelKiln10Figment10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Security record30% of the scoreLevelKiln10Figment10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Status transparency22% of the scoreKiln leadsKiln10Figment7Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Latency18% of the scoreFigment leadsKiln9Figment10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
The measured comparison
| Criterion (weight) | Kiln | Figment |
|---|---|---|
| Track record (30%) | 10 — 5.3 yr (2021 launch) | 10 — 8.3 yr (2018 launch) |
| Security record (30%) | 10 — no hack on record | 10 — no hack on record |
| Status transparency (22%) | 10 — public incident archive | 7 — live status, no archive |
| Latency (18%) | 9 — 314 ms median | 10 — 133 ms median |
| Score | 9.82 | 9.34 |
| % measured | 100% | 100% |
| Rank | #3 of 15 | #4 of 15 |
Hacks from DefiLlama (checked 14:45 UTC); status and latency from CoinPulse probes at 14:39 UTC, single location. Rules: methodology.
What explains the 0.48 gap
- Status transparency (22%): Kiln +0.66. Kiln's status page publishes a machine-readable incident archive, which scores 10: anyone can see how often it reported problems. Figment publishes a live machine-readable status but no archive, which scores 7 — you can see whether it is down now, not how often it broke before. Three points at 22% is 0.66.
- Latency (18%): Figment +0.18. Figment's 133 ms median scores 10; Kiln's 314 ms scores 9. Latency is measured from a single location, so treat it as a minor signal.
0.66 − 0.18 = 0.48. On track record and hack record the two are level: both have no incident in DefiLlama's database, and both clear the top age band, though Figment has operated three years longer.
What the scores don't show
Supported networks, staking products, commissions and net rewards, slashing history and cover, custody arrangements and client terms are not scored. The status score measures transparency, not uptime: a provider with an archive is easier to audit, not proven more reliable. Neither company has a CoinPulse company profile; verify these points in each provider's documentation.
Which fits which reader
- You want an incident history you can audit yourself: Kiln publishes one; Figment, as of this collection, does not.
- Interface responsiveness from our probe location: Figment was faster.
- Operating history beyond the scoring cap: Figment (8.3 years vs 5.3).
- Hack record: no difference.
The numbers side by side
| Measured | Kiln | Figment |
|---|---|---|
| Track record | 5.3 yr | 8.3 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 314 ms | 133 ms |
| Hacks on record | 0 | 0 |
| Status feed | statuspage | instatus |
Where each one falls short
Figment
Status transparency: Publishes a live machine-readable status, but no incident archive: you can see it is down now, not how often it broke before.
Which to choose
Why does Kiln outscore Figment if Figment is older and faster?+
Age is capped — both score 10 — and latency carries less weight than status transparency. Kiln's incident archive earns 0.66 more than Figment's live-only status; Figment's faster probe earns back 0.18.
Could Figment close the gap?+
Yes, on this method: publishing a machine-readable incident archive would raise its status score to 10. Scores update with each collection; check the Figment rating.
How current is this?+
Collected October 19, 2026. Full scorecards: Kiln rating · Figment rating. Related: Blockdaemon vs Kiln · Figment vs Coinbase · All 15 staking platforms. No affiliate links.