Provider at a glance
- Category
- Lightning Wallets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- aqua.net
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 70 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
AQUA
Self-custodial Liquid and Lightning wallet
Lightning Wallets
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 13 Lightning wallets in the published ranking
70
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is AQUA right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Inbound capacity and how it is provisioned9/10, the category best
- What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goes9/10; the category best is 10
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Custody of the spending balance8/10 here; Alby Hub scores 9
- The exit to the base chain and what it costs8/10 here; Alby Hub scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best Lightning wallet shows where it lands for you.
What will AQUA cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Payments per month
- 500
- Average payment
- $100
How safe is AQUA?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to AQUA
Compare all 4- 5Alby Hub1 point above · stronger on custody of balance (9 against 8)71
- 6ZEUSLevel on score · stronger on custody of balance (9 against 8)70
- 8Wallet of Satoshi2 points below · weaker on exit to chain (6 against 8)68
For your setup
Find out if AQUA fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where AQUA lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best Lightning walletNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why AQUA ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (27.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
308+7.689.010#8/13Loading evidence…
269+7.499.09#1/13Loading evidence…
248+6.148.010#6/13Loading evidence…
209+5.768.010#2/13Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind ZEUS, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–71 and ranks #5–#8
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of AQUA’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Custody of the spending balance 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes ZEUS+171#7 → #5
Inbound capacity and how it is provisioned 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes ZEUS+171#7 → #6
The exit to the base chain and what it costs 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes ZEUS+171#7 → #6
What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goes 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes ZEUS+171#7 → #6
Custody of the spending balance 8 → 7 on its ladder · Wallet of Satoshi passes it−168#7 → #8
Inbound capacity and how it is provisioned 9 → 7 on its ladder · Wallet of Satoshi passes it−266#7 → #8
The exit to the base chain and what it costs 8 → 6 on its ladder · Wallet of Satoshi passes it−267#7 → #8
Smallest climb: custody of the spending balance 8 → 9 passes ZEUS, #6.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Inbound capacity and how it is provisioned — 9/10, the category best
- What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goes — 9/10, category best 10/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Custody of the spending balance — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- The exit to the base chain and what it costs — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- The spending balance is not base-chain Bitcoin. Sending Lightning moves it out first - “the Layer 2 Bitcoin (L-BTC) has gone out of AQUA to Boltz” - so a failure is a refund, not a non-event: “AQUA retains a small amount of sats in the wallet to cover potential refunds in case a Lightning payment fails.” The L2 balance therefore cannot be emptied over Lightning. Getting back to mainnet BTC is a SideSwap peg-out at “a 0.1% fee (+ network fees)”, and “Peg-outs are processed after 2 Liquid confirmations and usually complete within 15–60 minutes, depending on Bitcoin confirmation times.” (jan3.zendesk.com articles 21952862266779, 34760729918363, 34940028331163, 42481648973851, read 2026-09-04)
Competitive position
Where AQUA leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 1314.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#6 / 1320.3 of 30 · best 22.3
Friction#1 / 132.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 133.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#10 / 135.5 of 18 · best 8.3
Where AQUA leads
- Inbound capacity and how it is provisioned#1 / 13
- What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goes#2 / 13
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
ZEUS#6 of 13 · score 70 · same score
AQUA leads on
- The exit to the base chain and what it costs8 vs 4
ZEUS leads on
- Custody of the spending balance9 vs 8
- What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goes10 vs 9
Largest single reason ZEUS is ahead: measured data (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: ZEUS has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Alby Hub#5 of 13 · score 71 · 1.0 point ahead
AQUA leads on
- Inbound capacity and how it is provisioned9 vs 8
Alby Hub leads on
- Custody of the spending balance9 vs 8
- The exit to the base chain and what it costs9 vs 8
Largest single reason Alby Hub is ahead: published criteria (+1.8 display points).Scenario cost: Alby Hub has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Wallet of Satoshi#8 of 13 · score 68 · 2.0 points behind
AQUA leads on
- The exit to the base chain and what it costs8 vs 6
- What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goes9 vs 7
Wallet of Satoshi leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason AQUA is ahead: published criteria (+5.5 display points).Scenario cost: Wallet of Satoshi has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
82 vs 70 · gap 12.0Why Blink ranks above AQUA
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 12.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisBlinkGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight20.322.3−5.2, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight5.58.3−7.3, worse
Published criterionThisBlinkPoints
Custody of the spending balance · w30810−1.92, worse
The exit to the base chain and what it costs · w2489−0.77, worse
Net7082−12.0
Your scenario
AQUA is not priced for this scenario
Percentage and fixed legs on each payment, for a year. Excludes chargebacks, FX markup and settlement fees priced separately. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Payments per month · your input500
Average payment · your input$100
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 13 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
13 of 13 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 30 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #5 to #8 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 30 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Custody of the spending balancestrength 8 · weight 30Report an error—30 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Inbound capacity and how it is provisionedstrength 9 · weight 26Report an error—30 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.The exit to the base chain and what it costsstrength 8 · weight 24Report an error—30 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goesstrength 9 · weight 20Report an error—30 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Custody failure (AQUA 8/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Custody of the spending balance · 30%
- Exit failure (AQUA 8/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by The exit to the base chain and what it costs · 24%
- Key failure (AQUA 9/10): your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.Scored by What a backup restores, and where a failed payment goes · 20%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Liveness 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: Inbound capacity and how it is provisioned (26%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- JAN3 Help Center article "What are the fees on AQUA" (edited 29 January 2026), read 30 September 2026 through the Help Center's public API because the article page answers HTTP 403 to a plain fetch: "When sending via Lightning, you are performing an L-BTC to Lightning swap through Boltz." with "Sending Lightning from AQUA: 0.1% + L-BTC Network Fees" and "Receiving Lightning in AQUA: 0.25% + L-BTC Network Fees". The exit to mainnet: "Peg-ins and Peg-outs are transactions that bridge Bitcoin and Liquid Bitcoin (L-BTC). These are facilitated by SideSwap and have a 0.1% fee (+ network fees)." The same article: "AQUA does not impose any additional fees on transactions."AQUA — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDAQUA — official pricing page ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- unregulated
- Regulatory note
- https://
aqua .net /terms (updated 17 April 2025; read 4 September 2026): "AQUA is not a bank, custodian, exchange, financial intermediary or regulated financial institution. We do not accept any deposits from, lend to, or generally engage in any kind of banking business or the business of a financial institution, whether in or from within Prospera ZEDE, Honduras or otherwise." Same page: "AQUA is a non-custodial Bitcoin and Layer 2 wallet"; "We do not store or have access to ... any private keys." Operator JAN3 LLC, Prospera ZEDE. No licence named on /terms, /terms-web, /privacy-web, /features, homepage; - Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with AQUA: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category 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
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 30 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 70, #7 of 13. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt lightning_wallets:aqua:2026.10.18:1e5959983959
Are you AQUA? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.