Smart Accounts & Multisig
Smart Accounts & Multisig evaluated across audit depth of the deployed version and its real exploit history, upgrade control and key holders, recovery paths and their documented failure modes, and published cost and chains you can actually reach.
15providers tracked
7ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
3 November 2026oldest read · due 18 DecIndependent. 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 ·
Your setup
What your country changes
Pick a country to see which smart accounts serve it. Nothing is hidden — any that does not is listed with that reason.- 🇺🇸 United States
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇳🇴 Norway
This affects provider availability.
Requirements (0)
Preferences (0)
Preferences re-weight Fit for you, which needs your country.
More filters
7 providers match your requirements
Out of 7 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: smart accounts and multisig, accounts that hold a treasury behind signing rules rather than one private key.Not ranked here: account abstraction infrastructure other than Candide, ranked on both pages, MPC wallets, institutional custody and key recovery, each ranked elsewhere, modules for ranked accounts, and dead products.7 of the 15 assessed are ranked; 8 were turned away by name. Who, and whyRequirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
SQ
Squads Protocol
How Squads Protocol was chosen
Leads this ranking on Upgrade control and key holdersSolana multisig program
80 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 7 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Upgrade control and key holdersAudit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history
Why it leads
- Squads Protocol is 4 points ahead of Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe), mainly because it scores higher on its upgrade control and its contract security record.
- Best in this ranking on contract security record and upgrade control
- Ahead of Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) on upgrade control (+7.8 points) and contract security record (+6.6 points)
Tradeoff
Recovery mechanics: 5 points below the best in this ranking
Share
#ProviderPriceCompare
2
Owner-upgradeable proxy multisig contract
76 / 100 out of 100
3
ERC-4337 infrastructure plus the guardian...
71 / 100 out of 100
4
ERC-4337 and ERC-6900 account contracts
66 / 100 out of 100
5
BI
ERC-7579 modular account and cross-chain...
62 / 100 out of 100
6
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (38.30 against 38.00)
Alternative Safe frontend
62 / 100 out of 100
7
Permission and delay modules bolted onto an...
57 / 100 out of 100
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Cost and chain reach
Published cost and chains you can actually reach
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 | Cost and chain reach (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) | 8 | 76 |
| Candide | 6 | 71 |
| Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) | 6 | 66 |
| Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) | 5 | 57 |
| Squads Protocol | 4 | 80 |
| Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) | 3 | 62 |
| Den | 3 | 62 |
Contract security record
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history
35% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Contract security record (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Squads Protocol | 9 | 80 |
| Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) | 7 | 66 |
| Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) | 7 | 62 |
| Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) | 6 | 76 |
| Den | 6 | 62 |
| Candide | 5 | 71 |
| Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) | 2 | 57 |
Upgrade control
Upgrade control and key holders
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 | Upgrade control (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Squads Protocol | 10 | 80 |
| Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) | 5 | 76 |
| Candide | 4 | 71 |
| Den | 4 | 62 |
| Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) | 3 | 66 |
| Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) | 3 | 62 |
| Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) | 2 | 57 |
Recovery mechanics
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes
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 | Recovery mechanics (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Candide | 8 | 71 |
| Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) | 7 | 76 |
| Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) | 6 | 57 |
| Squads Protocol | 3 | 80 |
| Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) | 2 | 66 |
| Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) | 2 | 62 |
| Den | 2 | 62 |
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 | Squads Protocol | 9 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 80 |
| 2 | Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) | 6 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 76 |
| 3 | Candide | 5 | 4 | 8 | 6 | 71 |
| 4 | Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) | 7 | 3 | 2 | 6 | 66 |
| 5 | Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) | 7 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 62 |
| 6 | Den | 6 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 62 |
| 7 | Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) | 2 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 57 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which smart accounts & multisig 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/10 out of 10Pts
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history8.4·910.1
Upgrade control and key holders6·108.0
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes4.8−531.9
Published cost and chains you can actually reach4.8−442.6
Σ methodology points22.6/32
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 Squads Protocol leads this category right now
Solana multisig program with burned upgrade authority since November 2024. Strongest on upgrade control and key holders (10/10): Squads Protocol v4 is immutable: the program's upgrade authority on Solana is null, so neither Squads Labs nor any third party can change the deployed code that holds funds. Weakest on recovery paths and their documented failure modes (3/10): Squads offers an optional time lock on approved transactions and member or threshold changes by the multisig itself, but documents no guardian or lost-signer recovery path and states no recovery failure mode. Published price: Basic: "$0 / month" plus a one-time deployment fee, which Squads states two ways: ".05 SOL" on squads.xyz/multisig but "0.1 SOL" on the Squads docs pricing and costs pages (all fetched 2026-11-03).
Best for
Upgrade control and key holders — 10/10
Main tradeoff
Squads Labs has moved on. squads.xyz now leads with Altitude (business account), Fuse (consumer app) and Grid (stablecoin API); Multisig is one of four products and no longer the company's centre of gravity. Combine that with an immutable program nobody can patch and you are betting on code that cannot change, maintained by a company that already has.
Verify before signup
Basic: "$0 / month" plus a one-time deployment fee, which Squads states two ways: ".05 SOL" on squads.xyz/multisig but "0.1 SOL" on the Squads docs pricing and costs pages (all fetched 3 November 2026). Pro: "$49 / month" ("Try free for 30 days"); the docs pricing page says that on subscribing a spending limit "worth $49 in USDC is created, enabling us to pull this amount from your Squads vault at the start of each month". Enterprise: "Custom". The docs costs page: Squads charges no fees on transactions except "Limit Orders - 0.25%"; network fees go to Solana.
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
How many signers do you have, and how many must approve before funds move?
Can your signers actually READ what they are approving, or are they trusting an interface?
Do you need broad multichain support or one ecosystem-first smart account?
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
SQ
Squads Protocol
Solana multisig program with burned upgrade authority since November 2024
Solana multisig program with burned upgrade authority since November 2024. Strongest on upgrade control and key holders (10/10): Squads Protocol v4 is immutable: the program's upgrade authority on Solana is null, so neither Squads Labs nor any third party can change the deployed code that holds funds. Weakest on recovery paths and their documented failure modes (3/10): Squads offers an optional time lock on approved transactions and member or threshold changes by the multisig itself, but documents no guardian or lost-signer recovery path and states no recovery failure mode. Published price: Basic: "$0 / month" plus a one-time deployment fee, which Squads states two ways: ".05 SOL" on squads.xyz/multisig but "0.1 SOL" on the Squads docs pricing and costs pages (all fetched 2026-11-03).
Best for: Upgrade control and key holders — 10/10
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · weight 35%9/10Upgrade control and key holders · weight 25%10/10Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · weight 20%3/10Published cost and chains you can actually reach · weight 20%4/10
Quick pick
Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe)
Owner-upgradeable proxy multisig contract, deployed across EVM chains
Owner-upgradeable proxy multisig contract, deployed across EVM chains. Strongest on published cost and chains you can actually reach (8/10): Safe{Wallet} is free to use; native swap and bridge widget fees (0.70% down to 0.1% by trade size) and Safe API tiers are printed on Safe's own help and pricing pages, and Safe Pro business plans start at €189 a month. The homepage claims 40+ networks; the networks page lists 28+ for the wallet. Weakest on upgrade control and key holders (5/10): Owners can repoint a Safe proxy to a new implementation by their signing threshold, with no timelock; Safe's own migration docs warn that a malicious implementation can take over the account and lose all funds. Published price: Safe{Wallet} itself is free (safe.global/pro, fetched 2026-11-03: "Free account-level experience"). Safe Pro, which "is offered exclusively to businesses (§ 14 BGB)", is priced on safe.global/pricing (fetched 2026-11-03): Starter "€189 /m excl.
Best for: Published cost and chains you can actually reach — 8/10
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · weight 35%6/10Upgrade control and key holders · weight 25%5/10Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · weight 20%7/10Published cost and chains you can actually reach · weight 20%8/10
Quick pick
Candide
ERC-4337 infrastructure plus the guardian recovery module Safe adopted
ERC-4337 infrastructure plus the guardian recovery module Safe adopted. Strongest on recovery paths and their documented failure modes (8/10): Candide's guardian recovery uses a guardian threshold and a grace period in which the current owner can cancel; after it, anyone can finalise. Candide states that on Safe 1.5 or later the module assumes the Safe's module guard is not malicious. Under email or SMS recovery Candide is the guardian. Weakest on upgrade control and key holders (4/10): Candide accounts are Safe singletons behind a proxy with an ERC-4337 module and fallback handler, so owners can change the implementation as on Safe, with added module paths; Candide publishes no document of who may upgrade. Published price: Candide pricing page (candide.dev/pricing, fetched 2026-11-03): Starter "$0" — "2,500 mainnet UserOps, no time limit", 2 mainnet chains, 25,000 API requests in total, unlimited testnet.
Best for: Recovery paths and their documented failure modes — 8/10
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · weight 35%5/10Upgrade control and key holders · weight 25%4/10Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · weight 20%8/10Published cost and chains you can actually reach · weight 20%6/10
Quick pick
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit)
ERC-4337 and ERC-6900 account contracts with hosted bundler and paymaster
ERC-4337 and ERC-6900 account contracts with hosted bundler and paymaster. Strongest on audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history (7/10): Alchemy's Modular Account v2 carries two named audits, by ChainLight and Quantstamp, of the same commit; no Alchemy or Modular Account loss appears on the DefiLlama hacks list or the rekt.news leaderboard. Weakest on recovery paths and their documented failure modes (2/10): The account address is the signer EOA delegated to Modular Account v2; Alchemy's docs describe no guardian, timelock or recovery path for the account itself, so recovery rests on the embedded-wallet provider. Published price: Alchemy pricing page (alchemy.com/pricing, fetched 2026-11-03): Free "Free 30M CU per month", "15 requests per second", "5 apps & 5 webhooks", no monthly charge; gas sponsorship "Testnet only".
Best for: Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history — 7/10
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · weight 35%7/10Upgrade control and key holders · weight 25%3/10Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · weight 20%2/10Published cost and chains you can actually reach · weight 20%6/10
Considered and not ranked
8 products we looked at and left out
A shortlist is only honest if it says who it turned away. Each of these was assessed against the same published criteria as the ranked table and excluded for a stated reason — not overlooked.
We assessed 15 products here and rank 7 — 47% of what we looked at. That share is of the products we assessed, not of the category: how many exist is not something we can count, so we do not claim a number for it.
Pimlico· Ranked elsewhereNunchuk· Ranked elsewhereFireblocksTurnkey· Ranked elsewhereFordefiRhinestone· Ranked elsewhereMultisStackup· No longer operating
What this ranking does not assess
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.
- Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.
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.
Quantum exposure: which signature scheme each product here relies on, and what it has published about post-quantum readiness, as of 15 October 2026. Read the explainer. It changes no score.
How this ranking is built
Reviewed on audit depth of the deployed version and its real exploit history, upgrade control and key holders, recovery paths and their documented failure modes, and published cost and chains you can actually reach.
Data checked Nov 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
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 smart account in 2026?
Squads Protocol ranks #1 overall for smart accounts & multisig on ChainChoice. Solana multisig program with burned upgrade authority since November 2024. 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
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · 35% (Squads Protocol 9/10, Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 6/10, Candide 5/10)
- Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Upgrade control and key holders · 25% (Squads Protocol 10/10, Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 5/10, Candide 4/10)
- Key failure: your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.Scored by Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · 20% (Squads Protocol 3/10, Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 7/10, Candide 8/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Exit failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Published cost and chains you can actually reach (20%).
FAQs
3 questions readers ask before choosing smart accounts & multisig.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing smart accounts
What is the safest type of crypto smart account?
Safety here is a property of the deployed contract, not of the device you open it on. A smart account is code holding your assets, so what matters is the audit depth of the version actually deployed and its real exploit history, who can push an upgrade to it and under what delay, and what the documented recovery paths are — including how each one fails. A recovery mechanism nobody has described a failure mode for has not been thought about hard enough. Convenience features are worth having only once those three answers are ones you can live with.
Do beginners need a smart account before buying crypto?
No, and it is worth understanding what a smart account adds before adopting one. These are contract accounts that can offer recovery without a seed phrase, spending limits, session permissions and gas paid in tokens rather than the chain's native asset. That is genuinely useful once you are transacting regularly. It also means your funds sit behind code that someone can upgrade, so the audit and upgrade-control questions on this page matter more than any convenience feature.
Is an unexploited contract a safe contract?
Not on its own. The leading product's contracts have never been exploited, and accounts built on them still lost $1.4B at Bybit in February 2025 — through a compromised frontend, not a contract flaw. What is scored is what happened to ACCOUNTS, because that is what holds the money.
Free advisor·No signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best smart accounts 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 signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Best picks
Best smart accounts & multisig in 2026
Weighted on audit depth of the deployed version and its real exploit history (35), upgrade control and key holders (25), recovery paths and their documented failure modes (20), and published cost and chains you can actually reach (20). The heaviest is audit depth of the deployed version and its real exploit history: Named third-party audits of the contract version actually deployed onchain (not a prior version), plus every incident where funds left an account built on this stack — including incidents…
Best overall
SQ
Squads Protocol
Solana multisig program with burned upgrade authority since November 2024
Data checked Nov 2026
Solana multisig program with burned upgrade authority since November 2024. Strongest on upgrade control and key holders (10/10): Squads Protocol v4 is immutable: the program's upgrade authority on Solana is null, so neither Squads Labs nor any third party can change the deployed code that holds funds. Weakest on recovery paths and their documented failure modes (3/10): Squads offers an optional time lock on approved transactions and member or threshold changes by the multisig itself, but documents no guardian or lost-signer recovery path and states no recovery failure mode. Published price: Basic: "$0 / month" plus a one-time deployment fee, which Squads states two ways: ".05 SOL" on squads.xyz/multisig but "0.1 SOL" on the Squads docs pricing and costs pages (all fetched 2026-11-03).
Best for: Upgrade control and key holders — 10/10
Browse this network
MS
Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research