Best decentralised identity in 2026
Decentralised Identity evaluated across credential custody & revocation power, verification without the vendor, biometric & pii handling (documented), and enforcement record & product continuity.
#1 of 8 · published ranking
ENS (as identity layer)81ChainChoice Score
Why it leads
Best in the pool on custody and revocation and enforcement and continuity risk
Cost
Not priced · No comparable price is published
8 compared Ranking-blind · 392 modules checked 2026-09-18Scored under methodology v2026.09.15 (2026-09-16)
8decentralised identity · sorted by chainchoice score
ranked before any payout data is seen#ProviderScoreEvidenceKey strengths
2−7
no receipt file
Verification without the vendorBiometric & PII handling (documented)
3−2
no receipt file
Verification without the vendorCredential custody & revocation power
4−12
no receipt file
Biometric & PII handling (documented)Enforcement record & product continuity
5−1
no receipt file
Enforcement record & product continuityCredential custody & revocation power
6−1
no receipt file
Credential custody & revocation powerVerification without the vendor
7−10
no receipt file
Biometric & PII handling (documented)Credential custody & revocation power
8−1
no receipt file
Verification without the vendorCredential custody & revocation power
Ranking-blind — order computed before any payout data is joined
Below the table
How this ranking works
Everything the table draws on continues here: how firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and the full guide to choosing.
Direct answer
What is the best decentralised identity in 2026?
ENS (as identity layer) ranks #1 overall for decentralised identity on ChainChoice. Onchain name and text records; proves key control, not human uniqueness. It holds that rank under an affiliate-blind methodology scored across 4 published, weighted criteria — the code that ranks providers physically cannot read affiliate payouts (CI-enforced), so a payout can't move a rank. The verdict re-computes on every fee change, incident, or regulatory action; full reasoning and the audit receipt are below.
Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10Pts
Credential custody & revocation power7.2·98.6
Verification without the vendor6−286.4
Biometric & PII handling (documented)6−175.6
Enforcement record & product continuity4.8·95.8
Σ methodology points26.4/32
Each bar is the score on that criterion’s own 0–10 scale, never rescaled to the pool. The dark line is the best any product here reached on that axis. Wt is the most the criterion can add to the 86-point weighted total. Pts is weight × score × 32; the sum is the methodology score, and each weighted point behind the leader costs 2.6 on the displayed score. how these are weighted
Why it ranks first
Why ENS (as identity layer) leads this category right now
Onchain name and text records; proves key control, not human uniqueness. Strongest on credential custody & revocation power (9/10): The name is an ERC-721 held in the user's own wallet and its text records are written by the owner; no company can revoke it and there is no issuer to go bankrupt. The real termination risk is economic rather than political: registration is a lease, and non-payment of the $5/year forfeits the name and every identity… Weakest on biometric & pii handling (documented) (7/10): No biometrics, no documents, no KYC, nothing collected — the smallest attack surface here because there is no store to breach. Held at 7 rather than 10 because the privacy failure mode is inverted: text records (email, com.twitter, avatar) are world-readable by design, and a persistent human-readable handle… Published price: Length-tiered annual rent, per ENS docs: 'At the time of writing, a 5+ letter .eth will cost you 5 USD per year. A 4 letter 160 USD per year, and a 3 letter 640 USD per year.' (3 characters is the minimum).
Best for
Credential custody & revocation power — 9/10
Main tradeoff
ENS is a name, not a credential — it proves control of a private key and nothing else. It cannot tell you a user is a unique human, is over 18, or is not sanctioned, so it does not substitute for anything else in this category; it complements them. Treat it as the durable identifier your other credentials attach to, and remember that an unrenewed name hands the whole identity to a stranger.
Verify before signup
Length-tiered annual rent, per ENS docs: 'At the time of writing, a 5+ letter .eth will cost you 5 USD per year. A 4 letter 160 USD per year, and a 3 letter 640 USD per year.' (3 characters is the minimum). Confirmed onchain on 15 Sep 2026 via ETHRegistrarController.rentPrice (0x59E16fcCd424Cc24e280Be16E11Bcd56fb0CE547, Ethereum block 25,985,000, ETH/USD 2,410.29 Chainlink): 1-year base = $5.00 (10-char), $160.00 (4-char), $640.00 (3-char), premium 0. 'Because the rent price is paid in ETH but denominated in USD', callers should overpay slightly, and Ethereum L1 gas is extra for registration, renewal and every record update. After expiry there is a 90-day grace period, then a 21-day Dutch-auction premium starting near 100 million USD. ENS explains the tiers as 'done to promote market diversity as there are an exponentially less amount of names the shorter they become.'
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
Who holds the credential, and can the issuer revoke it without you?
Does verification still work if the vendor's servers go down?
Is biometric enrolment acceptable to your users and lawful in your markets?
Quick picks
Strong options in this category
Start with the lead choice first, then use the shortlist only if you still need a challenger or stronger fit for a specific setup.
Best overall
ENS (as identity layer)
Onchain name and text records; proves key control, not human uniqueness
Onchain name and text records; proves key control, not human uniqueness. Strongest on credential custody & revocation power (9/10): The name is an ERC-721 held in the user's own wallet and its text records are written by the owner; no company can revoke it and there is no issuer to go bankrupt. The real termination risk is economic rather than political: registration is a lease, and non-payment of the $5/year forfeits the name and every identity… Weakest on biometric & pii handling (documented) (7/10): No biometrics, no documents, no KYC, nothing collected — the smallest attack surface here because there is no store to breach. Held at 7 rather than 10 because the privacy failure mode is inverted: text records (email, com.twitter, avatar) are world-readable by design, and a persistent human-readable handle… Published price: Length-tiered annual rent, per ENS docs: 'At the time of writing, a 5+ letter .eth will cost you 5 USD per year. A 4 letter 160 USD per year, and a 3 letter 640 USD per year.' (3 characters is the minimum).
Best for: Credential custody & revocation power — 9/10
Credential custody & revocation power · 30%
9/10
Verification without the vendor · 25%
8/10
Biometric & PII handling (documented) · 25%
7/10
Enforcement record & product continuity · 20%
9/10
Quick pick
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)
Open-source ZK credential stack; wallet-held credentials, self-hostable issuer node
Open-source ZK credential stack; wallet-held credentials, self-hostable issuer node. Strongest on verification without the vendor (8/10): An onchain verifier path exists alongside the off-chain Verifier SDK. Verification involves no interaction with the issuer, and revocation state is published to State contracts deployed on Ethereum, Polygon PoS, Polygon zkEVM, Linea and the Privado Identity Chain. Held below 10 because the relying party still runs Privado's verifier tooling and proofs are generated by a wallet, not read as a plain registry view call as they are for Proof of Humanity. Weakest on enforcement record & product continuity (5/10): No regulatory actions on record, but the worst brand-continuity record here after Civic: Polygon ID spun out of Polygon Labs to become Privado ID in June 2024, and the same team launched Billions in February 2025 with $30m raised. Documentation still ships a Mumbai-to-Amoy testnet migration guide for a testnet dead… Published price: No price list is published.
Best for: Verification without the vendor — 8/10
Credential custody & revocation power · 30%
7/10
Verification without the vendor · 25%
8/10
Biometric & PII handling (documented) · 25%
8/10
Enforcement record & product continuity · 20%
5/10
Quick pick
Proof of Humanity (v2)
Public onchain registry of humans, video-verified, Kleros-arbitrated, no operating company
Public onchain registry of humans, video-verified, Kleros-arbitrated, no operating company. Strongest on verification without the vendor (10/10): The reference point for the whole category: registry membership is a contract read on Ethereum or Gnosis. No API key, no developer portal, no rate limit, no terms of service, and no company whose bankruptcy or national ban could take verification offline. This is the only provider here that passes the tie-break test… Weakest on biometric & pii handling (documented) (2/10): The category's sharpest trade-off, and it lands badly: registration requires submitting a video of your face plus a profile photo and display name into a public, permanent onchain registry. There is no encryption, no selective disclosure, no ZK layer and no deletion path — anyone in the world can watch every… Published price: No price list appears on the Kleros PoH docs pages read. They say registration needs 'a refundable deposit' and that the Gnosis deployment is 'significantly reducing registration fees'.
Best for: Verification without the vendor — 10/10
Credential custody & revocation power · 30%
8/10
Verification without the vendor · 25%
10/10
Biometric & PII handling (documented) · 25%
2/10
Enforcement record & product continuity · 20%
7/10
Quick pick
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)
Aggregated stamp scoring for Sybil resistance; offchain API with onchain option
Aggregated stamp scoring for Sybil resistance; offchain API with onchain option. Strongest on biometric & pii handling (documented) (7/10): Stamps store hashes rather than identifiers — 'Human Passport does not store names, emails, IPs, or personal identifiers' — and the optional Individual Verifications keep credentials client-side ('Personal data never leaves the user’s device') and prove them with ZK. Biometric liveness is one optional verification type, not the gate, and the optional identity checks run through a third-party identity verification provider. Weakest on verification without the vendor (4/10): Reading a score requires the Stamps API, developer-portal registration and an API key, so verification is a hosted dependency by default; the onchain attestation path exists but is opt-in per user, so you cannot rely on it being populated for an arbitrary wallet.
Best for: Biometric & PII handling (documented) — 7/10
Credential custody & revocation power · 30%
4/10
Verification without the vendor · 25%
4/10
Biometric & PII handling (documented) · 25%
7/10
Enforcement record & product continuity · 20%
5/10
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing decentralised identity
Free advisorNo signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best decentralised identity pick
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — then review the evidence before deciding.
No signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Browse this network
How this ranking is built
Reviewed on credential custody & revocation power, verification without the vendor, biometric & PII handling (documented), and enforcement record & product continuity.
Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research