P2P.org vs Kiln
P2P.org scores 10 out of 10 and Kiln 9.82 in the [staking platforms ranking](/ratings/staking/), on data collected October 19, 2026, with 100% of the score measured for both. Both have no hack on record, both publish a full incident archive and both reach the top track-record band. The 0.18-point gap is one latency point from a single-location probe.
P2P.org scores higher: 10/10 against 9.82/10. It leads on 1 of 4 criteria, Kiln on 0.
Criterion by criterion
Same category, same weights, heaviest criterion first. Open a row for each side’s reasoning and evidence.
Track record30% of the scoreLevelP2P.org10Kiln10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Security record30% of the scoreLevelP2P.org10Kiln10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Status transparency22% of the scoreLevelP2P.org10Kiln10Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
Latency18% of the scoreP2P.org leadsP2P.org10Kiln9Why these marks ↓Hide ↑
The measured comparison
| Criterion (weight) | P2P.org | Kiln |
|---|---|---|
| Track record (30%) | 10 — 8.3 yr (2018 launch) | 10 — 5.3 yr (2021 launch) |
| Security record (30%) | 10 — no hack on record | 10 — no hack on record |
| Status transparency (22%) | 10 — public incident archive | 10 — public incident archive |
| Latency (18%) | 10 — 134 ms median | 9 — 314 ms median |
| Score | 10 | 9.82 |
| % measured | 100% | 100% |
| Rank | #1 of 15 | #3 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 0.18 gap
Kiln's 314 ms median response falls one band below P2P.org's 134 ms; one point at 18% weight is 0.18. That is the only difference in the score. Latency is timed from one place against a public web endpoint, so it says nothing about validator uptime or reward performance.
On the heavier criteria they match: no incident in DefiLlama's database, and machine-readable incident archives anyone can check. P2P.org has operated three years longer (8.3 vs 5.3), but both clear the maximum age band.
Context, not scored: over 90 days P2P.org's feed logged about 2 incidents per 30 days (median 374 minutes to resolution), Kiln's about 5 (median 1,521 minutes). Providers log at different levels of detail, so these figures are shown for context only.
What the scores don't show
Networks and products supported, commissions and net rewards, slashing history and cover, custody model and client eligibility are not scored. "No hack on record" refers only to DefiLlama's public database on the check date. Neither company has a CoinPulse company profile; check these points in each provider's documentation.
Which fits which reader
- Hack record and status transparency: no difference.
- Longer operating history: P2P.org (8.3 years vs 5.3).
- Faster interface response from our probe location: P2P.org.
For a real staking decision, compare supported networks, fee terms and slashing provisions directly; the score cannot separate these two on what matters most.
The numbers side by side
| Measured | P2P.org | Kiln |
|---|---|---|
| Track record | 8.3 yr | 5.3 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 134 ms | 314 ms |
| Hacks on record | 0 | 0 |
| Status feed | statuspage | statuspage |
Which to choose
Why does Kiln score 9.82 and not 10?+
Its interface median of 314 ms scored 9 on latency; at 18% weight that costs 0.18. Every other criterion is at 10.
Is P2P.org safer than Kiln?+
The ranking does not measure safety. On the signals it does measure — hack record and status transparency — the two are identical.
How current is this?+
Collected October 19, 2026. Full scorecards: P2P.org rating · Kiln rating. Related: P2P.org vs Blockdaemon · Blockdaemon vs Kiln · Kiln vs Figment · All 15 staking platforms. No affiliate links.