Decentralised Identity

Decentralised Identity evaluated across who holds the credential and who can revoke it, verification without the vendor, how biometric and personal data are handled and whether that is documented, and the enforcement record and product continuity.

8providers tracked

8ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)

12 November 2026Ranking snapshot

22 October 2026oldest read · due 6 Dec

Independent. Evidence-based.We rank with a published method and sourced evidence. No one can pay to rank.How it works

Set your country and amount to see your costs ·

8 providers match your requirements

Out of 8 ranked providers. 0 excluded.

What this ranks

Ranked here: decentralised identity products that you use to issue or accept credentials.Not ranked here: identity products that you cannot use to issue or accept credentials.8 of the 8 assessed are ranked.Requirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works

ENS (as identity layer)

How ENS (as identity layer) was chosen

Leads this ranking on Enforcement record & product continuity

Onchain name and text records

81 out of 100published score, #1 of all 8 worldwide

Evidence

High

4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.

Credential custody & revocation powerEnforcement record & product continuityVerification without the vendor

Why it leads

ENS (as identity layer) is 9 points ahead of Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID), mainly because it scores higher on its custody and revocation and its enforcement and continuity risk.
Best in this ranking on custody and revocation and enforcement and continuity risk
Ahead of Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) on custody and revocation (+5.6 points) and enforcement and continuity risk (+5.0 points)

Tradeoff

Verification independence: 2 points below the best in this ranking

Sort by

#ProviderPriceCompare

Open-source ZK credential stack

72 out of 100

Tied for #2 · ordered by name, A to Z

Public onchain registry of humans

72 out of 100

Aggregated stamp scoring

60 out of 100

Sumsub KYC check wrapped in a five-dollar BNB...

59 out of 100

Consumer proof-of-human network from the...

58 out of 100

OAuth login plus embedded wallets

48 out of 100

Iris-scan proof of personhood

47 out of 100

Compare providers (0)

See key differences in features, fees, security and more.

Custody and revocation

Credential custody & revocation power

30% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Custody and revocation (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
ENS (as identity layer)	9	81
Proof of Humanity (v2)	8	72
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	6	72
Galxe Passport	5	59
Billions Network	5	58
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	4	60
World ID (World Network / Tools for Humanity)	3	47
Civic (Civic Auth)	2	48

Verification independence

Verification without the vendor

25% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Verification independence (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Proof of Humanity (v2)	10	72
ENS (as identity layer)	8	81
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	8	72
Galxe Passport	5	59
Billions Network	5	58
World ID (World Network / Tools for Humanity)	5	47
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	4	60
Civic (Civic Auth)	2	48

Biometric and pii posture

Biometric & PII handling (documented)

25% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Biometric and pii posture (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	8	72
ENS (as identity layer)	7	81
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	7	60
Civic (Civic Auth)	6	48
Billions Network	4	58
Galxe Passport	3	59
Proof of Humanity (v2)	2	72
World ID (World Network / Tools for Humanity)	2	47

Enforcement and continuity risk

Enforcement record & product continuity

20% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Enforcement and continuity risk (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
ENS (as identity layer)	9	81
Proof of Humanity (v2)	7	72
Galxe Passport	6	59
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	5	72
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	5	60
Billions Network	4	58
Civic (Civic Auth)	2	48
World ID (World Network / Tools for Humanity)	1	47

All 4 published criteria

Every ranked row’s score on each criterion, in the published order. Choose a column to order by it.

	Provider					ChainChoice Score
1	ENS (as identity layer)	9	8	7	9	81
2	Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	6	8	8	5	72
3	Proof of Humanity (v2)	8	10	2	7	72
4	Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	4	4	7	5	60
5	Galxe Passport	5	5	3	6	59
6	Billions Network	5	5	4	4	58
7	Civic (Civic Auth)	2	2	6	2	48
8	World ID (World Network / Tools for Humanity)	3	5	2	1	47

How this ranking works

How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which decentralised identity were assessed and left out.

FirmThis verdict holds under every one-point re-read

See the arithmetic

Every published criterion was moved up and down by one point and the ranking re-run. The same product came first each time. The published rankings file

Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4

Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap out of 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): A .eth name is an ERC-721 token in the holder's own wallet on Ethereum, transferable like any NFT; no issuer holds a switch to revoke it, and the only loss path is non-renewal after a 90-day grace period. Weakest on biometric & PII handling (documented) (7/10): ENS collects no biometric or ID data, but text records attached to a name are world-readable key-value pairs on a persistent public handle, so anything a holder publishes stays linked to that name and wallet. Published price: ENS support "Pricing & Fees" page (support.ens.domains, read 2026-10-22): "Annual .eth pricing by name length: $5, $160, or $640.

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

ENS support "Pricing & Fees" page (support.ens.domains, read 22 October 2026): "Annual .eth pricing by name length: $5, $160, or $640. Paid in ETH on Ethereum Mainnet, plus gas — no other cost." (5+ characters $5 a year, 4 characters $160, 3 characters $640.) "Renewals use the same fee table as registration — $5, $160, or $640 a year, depending on the name length." "Gas is on top of the registration or renewal fee and changes with network demand." After expiry: "Grace period (90 days after expiry). Anyone can extend at the standard renewal price — extending only keeps the name with its previous owner. Nobody can register it." Then a temporary premium that "starts at $100 million and falls to $0 over 21 days." ENS docs (docs.ens.domains/registry/eth, read 22 October 2026): "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." "The minimum length of a name is 3 characters." "Because the rent price is paid in ETH but denominated in USD", callers should overpay slightly.

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

Best for: Credential custody & revocation power — 9/10

Credential custody & revocation power · weight 30%9/10Verification without the vendor · weight 25%8/10Biometric & PII handling (documented) · weight 25%7/10Enforcement record & product continuity · weight 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): Privado ID states that verification involves no interaction between verifier and issuer, and revocation state is published to public State contracts; a relying party still runs Privado's open-source verifier tooling against a wallet-generated proof. Weakest on enforcement record & product continuity (5/10): No regulator action appears on Privado ID's pages, but the product has rebranded twice (Polygon ID to Privado ID, now fronted by Billions), and its linked Terms of Use are still dated September 2023 and name the polygonid.me sites. Published price: No price list is published. The FAQ on privado.id (read 2026-10-22) answers "How much does it cost to use Privado ID?" with "Privado ID is an open-source software and is free to use." and plans revenue from four sources: credential fees, where "Privado ID…

Best for: Verification without the vendor — 8/10

Credential custody & revocation power · weight 30%6/10Verification without the vendor · weight 25%8/10Biometric & PII handling (documented) · weight 25%8/10Enforcement record & product continuity · weight 20%5/10

Quick pick

Tied for #2 · ordered by name, A to Z

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): Any relying party can call isHuman(address) on the public Proof of Humanity contracts on Gnosis and Ethereum through an ordinary RPC endpoint, with no API key or Kleros service in the path. Weakest on biometric & PII handling (documented) (2/10): Registration requires a face video showing the wallet address and a photo, published to IPFS and publicly linked to the wallet; submissions cannot be edited, so the biometric record is not deletable by design. Published facts: No price list appears on the Kleros PoH docs pages read (docs.kleros.io, read 2026-10-22).

Best for: Verification without the vendor — 10/10

Credential custody & revocation power · weight 30%8/10Verification without the vendor · weight 25%10/10Biometric & PII handling (documented) · weight 25%2/10Enforcement record & product continuity · weight 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): Human Passport's core Stamps store a Stamp JSON record, and its optional government ID, phone and liveness checks create a cryptographic credential client-side, with personal data stated to stay on the user's device. Weakest on credential custody & revocation power (4/10): Stamps live in Human Passport's own database by default; minting a Passport on-chain is optional and point-in-time, so most credentials sit with the vendor rather than in the user's wallet or on a public chain. Published price: Human Passport docs (docs.passport.human.tech, read 2026-10-22): "The core Passport Stamps and Passport Embed offerings are free, but additional customizations can be added to your integration to reduce user friction and brand the unique human verification…

Best for: Biometric & PII handling (documented) — 7/10

Credential custody & revocation power · weight 30%4/10Verification without the vendor · weight 25%4/10Biometric & PII handling (documented) · weight 25%7/10Enforcement record & product continuity · weight 20%5/10

Considered and not ranked

None left out by name

We assessed 8 products here and rank all 8. No product has been turned away by name; when one is, its name and the reason appear here. Evidence last read 22 October 2026.

What this ranking does not assess

Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.

These can still cost you money here; the ranking does not measure them, so a high place says nothing about them. Which criterion scores each family, and why the others do not apply, is in /data/risk-coverage.json.

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 Oct 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work

Reviewed 22 October 2026Next review by 6 December 2026Published 5 August 2026Methodology v2026.11.1

How this page is reviewed

Reviewed means every product ranked on this page was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.

Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.

How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money

Direct answer

What is the best identity provider 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; the full reasoning and the audit receipt are under Methodology.

How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores

Custody failure: whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.
Scored by Credential custody & revocation power · 30% (ENS (as identity layer) 9/10, Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) 6/10, Proof of Humanity (v2) 8/10)
Regulatory failure: no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.
Scored by Enforcement record & product continuity · 20% (ENS (as identity layer) 9/10, Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) 5/10, Proof of Humanity (v2) 7/10)
Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.
Scored by Verification without the vendor · 25% (ENS (as identity layer) 8/10, Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) 8/10, Proof of Humanity (v2) 10/10)
Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.
Scored by Biometric & PII handling (documented) · 25% (ENS (as identity layer) 7/10, Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID) 8/10, Proof of Humanity (v2) 2/10)

Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.

FAQs

3 questions readers ask before choosing decentralised identity.

Frequently asked

Questions people ask before choosing decentralised identity

What makes an identity actually self-sovereign?

That you can present it and a verifier can check it without the issuer being involved or online, and that nobody can revoke it unilaterally. Those two properties are what the word means; everything else is a company database with a wallet login.

Is 'decentralised' a claim I can check?

Only against the architecture. One provider here describes its protocol as open, decentralised and owned by no one, on a site that also records six-plus national regulators ordering it to suspend operations — an order nobody could serve on something genuinely ownerless.

What matters most when picking a identity provider?

Who can revoke the credential and whether it verifies without the vendor — 55% of the weight. Documented biometric handling follows, scored on architecture rather than on the phrase 'zero-knowledge' appearing anywhere.

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

Best picks

Best decentralised identity in 2026

Weighted on credential custody & revocation power (30), verification without the vendor (25), biometric & PII handling (documented) (25), and enforcement record & product continuity (20). The heaviest is credential custody & revocation power: Where the credential physically lives — user-held wallet, vendor database, or public chain — and who retains the switch to invalidate it.

Best overall

ENS (as identity layer)

Onchain name and text records; proves key control, not human uniqueness

Data checked Oct 2026

Best for: Credential custody & revocation power — 9/10

Browse this network

Keep exploring identity providers

The same published ranking, read for your country, side by side, or one provider at a time.

Every ranked provider, its full verdict

Best identity providers by country

How this category is defined

Identity Providers: overview, criteria and weights

Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier Founder

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research

Your setup

8 providers match your requirements

Why it leads

Tradeoff

Compare providers (0)