Best crypto wallets
Hot software wallets. We scored 15 of them 0–10 from public data — age plus latency and status transparency (our probe) — and ranked the 14 we could measure well enough to place fairly. No affiliate links: the order reflects the evidence, nothing else.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window. Collected by our own script, not by hand — reproducible, and reproducibly boring.
The full ranking
| # | Service | Score | Age | Latency | Median fix | Status feed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | MyEtherWallet | 1056% | 11.7y | 143 ms | — | blocked |
| 2 | Coinbase Wallet | 9.4174% | 9.7y | 527 ms | 104 min | statuspage |
| 3 | Zerion | 9.1578% | 10.7y | 180 ms | — | instatus |
| 4 | Phantom | 8.5978% | 5.6y | 170 ms | — | unknown |
| 5 | Safe | 8.5978% | 8.7y | 39 ms | — | unknown |
| 6 | Trust Wallet | 8.2678% | 9.7y | 365 ms | — | unknown |
| 7 | Rainbow | 7.7478% | 6.7y | 73 ms | — | none |
| 8 | MetaMask | 7.4178% | 10.7y | 312 ms | — | none |
| 9 | Argent | 7.4178% | 8.7y | 304 ms | — | none |
| 10 | Zengo | 7.4178% | 8.7y | 293 ms | — | none |
| 11 | Frame | 7.4178% | 7.7y | 241 ms | — | none |
| 12 | Backpack | 7.2178% | 4.6y | 458 ms | — | unknown |
| 13 | Rabby | 6.7478% | 5.6y | 533 ms | — | none |
| 14 | Exodus | 6.7478% | 11.7y | 554 ms | — | none |
Every figure carries the date it was taken, on the service’s card below, linked to its open source. Score is out of what we could measure — the % beside it is coverage.
How we scored crypto wallets
These weights belong to this category alone. Signature measurement here: Age plus latency and status transparency (our probe) — Clients over someone's backend: judged on longevity and how the backend behaves.
How long it has run and survived — time is signal.
Response latency we measure ourselves from a public endpoint.
Whether it publishes a status page anyone can audit.
How fast it resolves incidents, from its own timestamps.
Latency in this category is timed at the live interface for every service, so the comparison is like-for-like. We never compare latency across categories — a DEX interface and an exchange API are not the same thing, and pretending otherwise would just reward whoever we happened to probe more cheaply.
The brief also defines FEES and UX (0%, 0%). We don’t publish them: we can’t measure them ourselves, and an estimate dressed as a measurement is worse than a gap. Full methodology
The services
Live 11.7 yr (since founding (2015), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 143 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
Their status host turned our probe away — the page exists and we could not read it, so n/a rather than a mark against them.
No incident feed we can read, so no repair time to compute.
Live 9.7 yr (since founding (2017), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Measured 527 ms, but at a different surface from the rest of this category — not comparable, so shown as context, not scored.
Publishes a machine-readable incident archive (statuspage) — its whole record can be checked by anyone, including against us.
Median 104 min from published report to resolution across 50 logged incidents. Scored on repair speed, not on how many it logged.
The provider’s feed returns its 50 most recent incidents and no more, which here reaches back 48 days. The remaining 42 are blank because we cannot see them — not because nothing happened.
Over the 48 days the feed covers. Not scored — logging granularity varies between services.
Timed at a different surface from the rest of this category, so not a fair comparison — not scored.
Incident repair time: Median 104 min from published report to resolution across 50 logged incidents. Scored on repair speed, not on how many it logged.
Zerion
Live 10.7 yr (since founding (2016), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 180 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
Publishes a live machine-readable status, but no incident archive: you can see it is down now, not how often it broke before.
No incident feed we can read, so no repair time to compute.
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.
Phantom
Live 5.6 yr (since founding (2021), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 170 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
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 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).
Safe
Live 8.7 yr (since founding (2018), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 39 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
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 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).
Live 9.7 yr (since founding (2017), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 365 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
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 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).
Rainbow
Live 6.7 yr (since founding (2020), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 73 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
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.
MetaMask
Live 10.7 yr (since founding (2016), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 312 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
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.
Argent
Live 8.7 yr (since founding (2018), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 304 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
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.
Zengo
Live 8.7 yr (since founding (2018), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 293 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
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.
Frame
Live 7.7 yr (since founding (2019), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 241 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
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.
Backpack
Live 4.6 yr (since founding (2022), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 458 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
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 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).
Rabby
Live 5.6 yr (since founding (2021), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 533 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
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.
Exodus
Live 11.7 yr (since founding (2015), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 554 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No public status page found. Nothing about its reliability can be verified from outside — including by us.
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.
Who we left out, and why
We looked at 15, ranked 14, and could not measure 1.
| Service | Status feed | Why it isn’t ranked |
|---|---|---|
| OKX Wallet | none | 1 of 4 criteria measurable, 22% of this category’s weight — under the 25% a place in the ranking needs. Left unranked on purpose: the less we measure, the fewer criteria there are to dock points on, so a thinly-measured service drifts upward for no reason but our ignorance. |
Head to head
How to choose crypto wallets
Hot software wallets — and the honest truth is that no single ranking fits everyone. Our scores tell you what is best-evidenced on public data: age plus latency and status transparency (our probe). Use them as a shortlist, not a verdict.
Start at the top of the table, then open the full breakdown for any service you are considering. Read the coverage figure beside its score — a high number on thin coverage is a narrower claim than the same score fully measured. Check the “where we docked points” and “who it’s not for” notes on each card; the service that scores highest overall is not always the one that fits your specific need. And remember what these scores deliberately leave out — fees and support quality — which you should weigh yourself before committing.
Crypto wallets ratings — FAQ
How are crypto wallets ranked on this page?+
Each service is scored 0–10 from public data — age plus latency and status transparency (our probe) — weighted for what matters in this category, plus our own latency and status checks. 14 of 15 are ranked; the rest we could not measure enough to place fairly. Every figure is dated and links to its source.
What is the best crypto wallet?+
On the data we could measure, MyEtherWallet scores highest at 10/10, ahead of Coinbase Wallet (9.41/10). "Best" here means best-evidenced, not most advertised — open each service below for the full breakdown and decide what fits your needs.
Why isn’t the biggest name at the top?+
Size is not a criterion. A large service that publishes no audits or status page cannot demonstrate its safety from the outside, so it scores below a smaller one that can — even if it is perfectly sound. We rate what is verifiable, not what is famous.
What does the "% measured" figure under a score mean?+
It is the share of this category's criteria weight we could actually fill for that service. Anything we could not measure is marked n/a and its weight is redistributed across the rest — never counted as zero — so the percentage tells you how complete the verdict is.
Do you earn money from these rankings?+
No. There are no affiliate links, no paid placements and no sponsored entries anywhere in the ratings section. That is what lets this list put a smaller, audited service above a bigger, opaque one.
No affiliate links, paid placements or ads anywhere on this site. How this is funded · Methodology