Onchain Attestations

Onchain Attestations evaluated across revocation and expiry semantics, issuer permissioning and identity, verifiable chain deployments, and cost per attestation.

9providers tracked

7ranked (methodology v2026.10.18)

3 November 2026Ranking snapshot

27 September 2026oldest read · due 11 Nov

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

7 providers match your requirements

Out of 7 ranked providers. 0 excluded.

What this ranks

Ranked here: onchain attestation services, which let an issuer record a per-subject claim onchain that others can depend on, compared on how that claim is revoked or expires.Not ranked here: proofs of unique personhood that issue no per-subject attestation record and carry no revocation semantic, and superseded attestation products that are not independent.7 of the 9 assessed are ranked; 2 were turned away by name. Who, and whyRequirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works

Sign Protocol

How Sign Protocol was chosen

Leads this ranking on Revocation and expiry semantics

Permissionless omnichain attestation protocol with schema-enforced validity caps and reasoned revocation

ChainChoice Score81 out of 100

Evidence

High

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

Revocation and expiry semanticsVerifiable chain deploymentsCost per attestation

Why it leads

Sign Protocol is 1 point ahead of Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS), mainly because it scores higher on its revocation and expiry.
Best in this ranking on revocation and expiry (10/10; next 9/10)
Ahead of Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) on revocation and expiry (+2.0 points)

Tradeoff

Issuer accountability: 3 points below the best in this ranking

Sort by

#ProviderPriceCompare

Permissionless onchain and offchain attestation...

80 out of 100

Consensys-maintained shared attestation...

79 out of 100

Self-hosted issuer-node stack

71 out of 100

Coinbase-issued EAS attestations on Base...

68 out of 100

Solana Foundation attestation program using...

65 out of 100

Sybil-resistance scoring service

64 out of 100

Compare providers (0)

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

Issuance cost

Cost per attestation

18% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Issuance cost (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)	9	80
Sign Protocol	8	81
Coinbase Verifications	8	68
Verax Attestation Registry	7	79
Solana Attestation Service (SAS)	7	65
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	6	71
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	3	64

Deployment verifiability

Verifiable chain deployments

24% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Deployment verifiability (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Sign Protocol	9	81
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)	9	80
Verax Attestation Registry	8	79
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	8	64
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	7	71
Coinbase Verifications	6	68
Solana Attestation Service (SAS)	6	65

Revocation and expiry

Revocation and expiry semantics

32% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Revocation and expiry (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Sign Protocol	10	81
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)	9	80
Verax Attestation Registry	8	79
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	7	71
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	5	64
Coinbase Verifications	4	68
Solana Attestation Service (SAS)	3	65

Issuer accountability

Issuer permissioning and identity

26% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.

Provider	Issuer accountability (0–10)	ChainChoice Score
Verax Attestation Registry	9	79
Coinbase Verifications	8	68
Solana Attestation Service (SAS)	8	65
Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	7	71
Sign Protocol	6	81
Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)	6	80
Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	6	64

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	Sign Protocol	10	6	9	8	81
2	Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)	9	6	9	9	80
3	Verax Attestation Registry	8	9	8	7	79
4	Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)	7	7	7	6	71
5	Coinbase Verifications	4	8	6	8	68
6	Solana Attestation Service (SAS)	3	8	6	7	65
7	Human Passport (formerly Gitcoin Passport)	5	6	8	3	64

How this ranking works

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

One point from changingSign Protocol leads Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) by 1 point

A one-point change on one criterion puts Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) first, so read both.

See the arithmetic

Move revocation and expiry semantics — the heaviest criterion that changes it, weighted 32 — by a single point and Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) takes first place. Both are worth reading. The published rankings file

Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4

Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap out of 10Pts

Revocation and expiry semantics7.7·1010.2

Issuer permissioning and identity6.2−365.0

Verifiable chain deployments5.8·96.9

Cost per attestation4.3−184.6

Σ methodology points26.8/32

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 Sign Protocol leads this category right now

Permissionless omnichain attestation protocol with schema-enforced validity caps and reasoned revocation, deployed as upgradeable proxies on nine maintained EVM mainnets. Strongest on revocation and expiry semantics (10/10): Sign Protocol keeps a revoked attestation onchain with a revoked flag and revocation timestamp, emits the revocation reason, and enforces expiry through validUntil capped by the schema's maxValidFor. Revocability is set per schema, and offchain attestations can be revoked onchain with a reason. Weakest on issuer permissioning and identity (6/10): Sign Protocol records the attester, who must be the caller of attest() and the only party able to revoke, but issuance is open to any address and the protocol stores no issuer name or allowlist; gating is left to optional schema hooks. Published price: "To fund the account balance to pay for API key usage, you can purchase credits with USDC (1 USDC = 100 Credits)." — this priced service pays for decentralized storage uploads (a base fee of "0.01" Credits per upload on Arweave, BNB Greenfield and IPFS plus a…

Best for

Revocation and expiry semantics — 10/10

Main tradeoff

Every maintained mainnet deployment is an upgradeable proxy owned by one address, 0xAE45849165E17Dc555B8264dD4Ae01a3F42344e2, and eth_getCode for that address returned exactly "0x" on both Ethereum and Base on 2026-08-07 — it is an externally-owned account, not a multisig. One private key can therefore replace the attestation logic on nine mainnets at once. Separately, the documentation has been reframed around S.I.G.N.: the docs index at docs.sign.global/llms.txt is titled "# Sovereign Infrastructure for Global Nations" and describes "S.I.G.N. is sovereign-grade digital infrastructure for national systems of money, identity, and capital. Sign Protocol provides the shared evidence layer used across deployments.", so a buyer integrating the developer stack is now a secondary audience.

Verify before signup

"To fund the account balance to pay for API key usage, you can purchase credits with USDC (1 USDC = 100 Credits)." — this priced service pays for decentralized storage uploads (a base fee of "0.01" Credits per upload on Arweave, BNB Greenfield and IPFS plus a per-byte size fee, with the caveat "Please note the above fees may be adjusted without notice. All fee units are in Credits."). No protocol fee is documented for onchain attest() or revoke(); the ISP reference only offers payable variants for when a schema hook the schema owner attached expects payment, and offchain attestation via attestOffchain carries no documented charge. (Sign Developer Platform page, docs.sign.global/for-builders/sdp.md, fetched 27 September 2026)

Recommendation summary

What should decide this category

When a claim is withdrawn, can a consumer still see that it existed?

Who is permitted to issue, and can you establish who signed?

Are the deployments real - contract addresses you can check on an explorer?

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

Sign Protocol

Permissionless omnichain attestation protocol with schema-enforced validity caps and reasoned revocation, deployed as upgradeable proxies on nine maintained EVM mainnets.

Best for: Revocation and expiry semantics — 10/10

Revocation and expiry semantics · weight 32%10/10Issuer permissioning and identity · weight 26%6/10Verifiable chain deployments · weight 24%9/10Cost per attestation · weight 18%8/10

Quick pick

Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS)

Permissionless onchain and offchain attestation registry with a schema registry, deployed on 11 EVM mainnets and shipped as an OP Stack predeploy.

Permissionless onchain and offchain attestation registry with a schema registry, deployed on 11 EVM mainnets and shipped as an OP Stack predeploy. Strongest on revocation and expiry semantics (9/10): EAS keeps a revoked attestation onchain with its revocation time, a per-attestation revocable flag and an expiry field, so a revoked claim stays distinguishable from one never issued. No revocation reason is stored, and the docs leave offchain revocations to separate management. Weakest on issuer permissioning and identity (6/10): Issuance on EAS is open to any address. Each attestation records and indexes the signing address, and only that attester can revoke it, but the protocol stores no issuer name or allowlist; unless a schema owner attaches a resolver, the consumer decides which addresses to trust. Published price: "EAS is a free service. However, when making onchain attestations, users will incur gas fees, which vary based on network activity, attestation complexity, and the specific chain used.

Best for: Revocation and expiry semantics — 9/10

Revocation and expiry semantics · weight 32%9/10Issuer permissioning and identity · weight 26%6/10Verifiable chain deployments · weight 24%9/10Cost per attestation · weight 18%9/10

Quick pick

Verax Attestation Registry

Consensys-maintained shared attestation registry on four EVM mainnets where issuance runs through named, registry-allowlisted Portal contracts.

Consensys-maintained shared attestation registry on four EVM mainnets where issuance runs through named, registry-allowlisted Portal contracts. Strongest on issuer permissioning and identity (9/10): Verax admits issuers through an owner-held allowlist and routes every attestation through a registered Portal that must carry a name and an owner name; only the issuing Portal can revoke. The owner name is self-declared and one registry owner holds the allowlist. Weakest on cost per attestation (7/10): Verax publishes no protocol fee; the issuer pays gas plus a one-time Portal deployment. There is no offchain path and no published per-attestation cost, and an optional FeeModule lets a Portal creator charge a fee on attestations made through that Portal. Published price: No protocol fee is published in the README or the issuer documentation; the README's only price-bearing line is its licence badge, "[![License](https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-green)](./LICENSE)", so the registry itself costs nothing and the issuer…

Best for: Issuer permissioning and identity — 9/10

Revocation and expiry semantics · weight 32%8/10Issuer permissioning and identity · weight 26%9/10Verifiable chain deployments · weight 24%8/10Cost per attestation · weight 18%7/10

Quick pick

Privado ID (formerly Polygon ID)

Self-hosted issuer-node stack for W3C verifiable credentials with zero-knowledge presentation and three selectable revocation-status transports, anchored to CREATE2 State contracts on five listed networks, one of which (Polygon zkEVM) has produced no block since 2026-07-03. Strongest on revocation and expiry semantics (7/10): Privado ID offers three revocation-status transports, one of which keeps revocation onchain even when the issuer node is offline, and its State contracts timestamp expirations. The issuer picks the transport, so onchain revocation is not guaranteed, and no revocation reason is recorded. Weakest on cost per attestation (6/10): Privado ID publishes no price list and no protocol fee. Issuers run a self-hosted node (Vault, Redis, Postgres) whose cost depends on the chosen cloud infrastructure; signature credentials are issued offchain without per-credential gas, and published gas figures cover verification only. Published price: No price list is published — www.privado.id/pricing and privado.id/pricing both returned HTTP 404 on 2026-09-27.

Best for: Revocation and expiry semantics — 7/10

Revocation and expiry semantics · weight 32%7/10Issuer permissioning and identity · weight 26%7/10Verifiable chain deployments · weight 24%7/10Cost per attestation · weight 18%6/10

Considered and not ranked

2 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 9 products here and rank 7 — 78% 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.

World ID / Worldcoin· No longer operatingOptimism Attestation Station

What this ranking does not assess

Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.
Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.
Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.

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 revocation and expiry semantics, issuer permissioning and identity, verifiable chain deployments, and cost per attestation.

Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work

Reviewed 27 September 2026Next review by 11 November 2026Published 7 August 2026Methodology v2026.10.18

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 attestation layer in 2026?

Sign Protocol ranks #1 overall for onchain attestations on ChainChoice. Permissionless omnichain attestation protocol with schema-enforced validity caps and reasoned revocation, deployed as upgradeable proxies on nine maintained EVM mainnets. 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

Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Scored by Revocation and expiry semantics · 32% (Sign Protocol 10/10, Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) 9/10, Verax Attestation Registry 8/10)
Scored by Verifiable chain deployments · 24% (Sign Protocol 9/10, Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) 9/10, Verax Attestation Registry 8/10)
Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.
Scored by Issuer permissioning and identity · 26% (Sign Protocol 6/10, Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) 6/10, Verax Attestation Registry 9/10)

Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Liveness failure, Exit 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: Cost per attestation (18%).

FAQs

3 questions readers ask before choosing onchain attestations.

Frequently asked

Questions people ask before choosing onchain attestations

What happens when an attestation is revoked?

It depends on the system, and the difference is the most consequential thing in this category. EAS records a revocationTime, so a consumer reading the record sees a claim that was made and later withdrawn. Solana Attestation Service instead closes the account: close_attestation.rs calls attestation_info.close(), the Attestation struct source contains no occurrence of "revok", and the rent refund goes to whoever performs the closure. After revocation there is nothing to read, so a withdrawn credential and one that was never issued are indistinguishable - and the party who erases it is paid to do so. This is the finding most likely to break a compliance integration silently, because nothing errors; the claim simply stops being there.

Can I rely on a big-name attestation for compliance?

Read the issuer's own terms first. Coinbase Verifications is the closest thing to institutional KYC in this pool and its integration README says the attestation "is for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon by you or any third party for any legal, compliance, or contractual purpose", adding that Coinbase "does not represent, warrant or guarantee that the information contained in any attestation or represented thereby is complete, accurate, or current." The schemas are revocable onchain - verified by eth_call to the Base SchemaRegistry predeploy, returning revocable true for all three - yet the words "revoke", "revocation", "expiry" and "expiration" appear zero times in that 10,341-byte README. The capability exists and the documentation never tells an integrator how it behaves.

Are these deployments as decentralised as they look?

Not always, and the check is cheap. Sign Protocol's maintained deployments across nine mainnets are upgradeable proxies owned by a single address: eth_getCode for that owner returned exactly "0x" on both Ethereum and Base, meaning an externally owned account rather than a multisig. All nine proxies return identical bytecode, so one key can replace attestation logic on nine chains at once. Separately, cost is worth checking against the chain rather than the price list: Human Passport charges $2 to write an attestation whose measured onchain cost the same day on the same L2 was $0.004319, a 463x markup, for a score that carries no expiry field - "Onchain scores do not have an explicit expiry date associated with them."

Free advisorNo signup needed

Still unsure? Get your best onchain attestations 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 onchain attestations in 2026

Weighted on revocation and expiry semantics (32), issuer permissioning and identity (26), verifiable chain deployments (24), and cost per attestation (18). Revocation carries the most weight because it is where the category breaks quietly: Solana Attestation Service revokes by DELETING - close_attestation.rs calls attestation_info.close(), and the string "revok" appears zero times in the Attestation struct source, so after revocation the record does not exist and a consumer cannot tell a withdrawn credential from one that was never issued. The rent refund flows to whoever closes it, which means the economics reward erasing the evidence.

Best overall

Sign Protocol

Permissionless omnichain attestation protocol with schema-enforced validity caps and reasoned revocation, deployed as upgradeable proxies on nine maintained EVM mainnets.

Data checked Sep 2026

Best for: Revocation and expiry semantics — 10/10

Browse this network

Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier Founder

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

Your setup

7 providers match your requirements

Why it leads

Tradeoff

Compare providers (0)