Provider at a glance
- Category
- Smart Accounts & Multisig
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- onchainden.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 62 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Den
Alternative interface for Safe accounts
Smart Accounts & Multisig
#6 Overall
Ranked #6 of 7 smart accounts & multisig in the published ranking
62
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Den right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history6/10 here; Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) scores 7
- Upgrade control and key holders4/10 here; the category best is 10
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes2/10 here; Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) scores 6
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach3/10 here; Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) scores 6
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 smart account shows where it lands for you.
What will Den cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Den?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Den
Compare all 4- 4Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit)4 points above · stronger on cost and chain reach (6 against 3)66
- 5Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)Level on score · stronger on contract security record (7 against 6)62
- 7Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)5 points below · stronger on recovery mechanics (6 against 2)57
For your setup
Find out if Den fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Den 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 smart accountNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Den ranks #6
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (13.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
356+6.727.09#5/7Loading evidence…
254+3.204.010#3/7Loading evidence…
202+1.283.08#5/7Loading evidence…
203+1.925.08#6/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Biconomy (Nexus / MEE), #5
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 59–64 and ranks #5–#6
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 Den’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.
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)+164#6 → #5
Upgrade control and key holders 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)+163#6 → #5
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)+163#6 → #5
Published cost and chains you can actually reach 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)+163#6 → #5
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history 6 → 3 on its ladder · Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) passes it−355#6 → #7
Upgrade control and key holders 4 → 1 on its ladder · Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) passes it−357#6 → #7
Smallest climb: audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history 6 → 7 passes Biconomy (Nexus / MEE), #5.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Upgrade control and key holders — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes — 2/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Den is not, as is widely repeated, the renamed Multis. Multis was a separate Sequoia- and Y Combinator-backed treasury platform acquired outright by the Safe Ecosystem Foundation on 18 April 2024, with CEO Thibaut Sahaghian joining Safe as Network Abstraction Lead. Den is an unrelated company that publishes no pricing; the Safe interface scored here has no third-party review of its own, while the site nav advertises "Smart contract audits Independently audited by leading security firms Certora and yAudit" for its separate Multi-Layer Security Wallet.
Competitive position
Where Den 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 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#6 / 79.8 of 30 · best 16.9
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Den leads
- Upgrade control and key holders#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history#5 / 7
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes#5 / 7
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach#6 / 7
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.
Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)#5 of 7 · score 62 · same score
Den leads on
- Upgrade control and key holders4 vs 3
Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history7 vs 6
Largest single reason Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit)#4 of 7 · score 66 · 4.0 points ahead
Den leads on
- Upgrade control and key holders4 vs 3
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history7 vs 6
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach6 vs 3
Largest single reason Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)#7 of 7 · score 57 · 5.0 points behind
Den leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history6 vs 2
- Upgrade control and key holders4 vs 2
Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) leads on
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes6 vs 2
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach5 vs 3
Largest single reason Den is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 62 · gap 18.0Why Squads Protocol ranks above Den
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 18.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSquads ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight9.816.9−18.5, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisSquads ProtocolPoints
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · w3569−3.36, worse
Upgrade control and key holders · w25410−4.80, worse
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · w2023−0.64, worse
Published cost and chains you can actually reach · w2034−0.64, worse
Net6280−18.0
Your scenario
Den is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. 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
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 14 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 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 14 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 #6 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 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit historystrength 6 · weight 35Report an error—14 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.Upgrade control and key holdersstrength 4 · weight 25Report an error—14 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.Recovery paths and their documented failure modesstrength 2 · weight 20Report an error—14 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.Published cost and chains you can actually reachstrength 3 · weight 20Report an error—14 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
- Contract failure (Den 6/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · 35%
- Control failure (Den 4/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Upgrade control and key holders · 25%
- Key failure (Den 2/10): your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.Scored by Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · 20%
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%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Not published. The Den docs sitemap (docs.onchainden.com/sitemap.md) has no pricing, billing or plans page; Organizations and bookkeeping are "part of Den's upcoming premium tier", offered by demo with no price. The Multi-Layer Security Wallet docs say "Each plan includes a default fee allowance" for gas, again without a price, and onchainden.com/pricing redirects to the homepage. — no list price is published, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.Den — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDDen — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Multi-chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Available globally; Den's terms exclude persons in jurisdictions under comprehensive US sanctions without naming countries; enterprise plans are sold by Order Form.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Den: 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
- 14 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 62, #6 of 7. 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 smart_accounts:den_multisig:2026.10.18:eee0f90c8ada
Are you Den? 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.