Provider at a glance
- Category
- MPC & Embedded Wallets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- dfns.co
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Dfns
Institutional MPC wallets
MPC & Embedded Wallets
#1 Overall
Ranked #1 of 7 MPC & embedded wallets in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $800 your cost/yr
Is Dfns right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Vendor-Exit Survivability9/10, the category best
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture8/10, the category best
- Published Pricing Actionability7/10; the category best is 8
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure9/10, the category best
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 MPC wallet shows where it lands for you.
What will Dfns cost you?
$800 your cost/yr
- Transactions per year
- 1k
- Annual price
- $800
$800 above the median of 7 priced MPC & embedded wallets.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Dfns?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Dfns
Compare all 4- 2Portal5 points below · stronger on pricing transparency mpc (8 against 7)76$0.00
- 3Privy6 points below · stronger on pricing transparency mpc (8 against 7)75$0.00
- 4Turnkey7 points below · stronger on pricing transparency mpc (8 against 7)74$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Dfns fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Dfns 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 MPC walletNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why it leads
Why Dfns ranks #1
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (26.7 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 3 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
409+11.527.09#1/7Loading evidence…
258+6.407.08#1/7Loading evidence…
207+4.487.08#4/7Loading evidence…
159+4.327.09#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin+5over Portal, #2
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 81–82 and stays #1
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 Dfns’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.
Vendor-Exit Survivability 9 → 6 on its ladder · Portal passes it−378#1 → #3
Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture 8 → 4 on its ladder · Portal passes it−479#1 → #2
Published Pricing Actionability 7 → 2 on its ladder · Portal passes it−579#1 → #2
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Vendor-Exit Survivability — 9/10, the category best
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture — 8/10, the category best
- Published Pricing Actionability — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
0 from the score dataWhere it trails
No scored criterion trails the category best by two points or more, so no tradeoff can be stated from the data.
Record watch-outs
- Priced and shaped for institutions, not consumer apps: the entry tier caps at 10 wallets and 100 signatures per month, and the $8,000/year Basic tier allows only 1,000 signatures per month — a consumer app would blow through that in a day. The self-hosted signer model that earns its exit score also transfers real operational burden: you are now running threshold-signing nodes.
- Dfns publishes a dedicated disaster-recovery page stating 'Recovery is entirely independent of DFNS. You only need your private key and the backup files.' It documents 'Layer 4' independent recovery: each key share is encrypted with the customer's Ed25519 public key at wallet creation and stored in a customer-controlled S3 bucket, with 'Shares are encrypted with your Ed25519 public key. DFNS cannot decrypt the backups.' Nuance that preserves a partial deduction: Layer 4 is an optional add-on available only for dedicated MPC clusters, and without it 'all key shares encrypted with those keys are permanently inaccessible' if the customer loses its encryption keys. Read again 15 September 2026: the page now sits at docs.dfns.co/advanced/deployment-models/disaster-recovery and reads 'you can reconstruct your keys from only your private key and the backup files, even if DFNS is unavailable'; Layer 4 'requires a dedicated MPC cluster' and is enabled by contacting DFNS.
- The same disaster-recovery page publishes exactly that runbook: on signer failure, 'Deploy a replacement signer, restore its configuration, certificates, and database access', and if the threshold is still met by the remaining signers, 'signing continues uninterrupted during recovery.'
Competitive position
Where Dfns 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#1 / 720.0 of 30 · pool best
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 Dfns leads
- Vendor-Exit Survivability#1 / 7
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture#1 / 7
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure#1 / 7
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.
Portal#2 of 7 · score 76 · 5.0 points behind
Dfns leads on
- Vendor-Exit Survivability9 vs 7
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture8 vs 7
Portal leads on
- Published Pricing Actionability8 vs 7
Largest single reason Dfns is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Portal is −$800 against Dfns.
Privy#3 of 7 · score 75 · 6.0 points behind
Dfns leads on
- Vendor-Exit Survivability9 vs 7
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure9 vs 6
Privy leads on
- Published Pricing Actionability8 vs 7
Largest single reason Dfns is ahead: published criteria (+6.5 display points).Scenario cost: Privy is −$800 against Dfns.
Turnkey#4 of 7 · score 74 · 7.0 points behind
Dfns leads on
- Vendor-Exit Survivability9 vs 7
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure9 vs 5
Turnkey leads on
- Published Pricing Actionability8 vs 7
Largest single reason Dfns is ahead: published criteria (+7.3 display points).Scenario cost: Turnkey is −$800 against Dfns.
Against #2
81 vs 76 · gap 5.0Why Dfns ranks above Portal
DimensionThisPortalGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight20.018.0+5.2, better
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisPortalPoints
Vendor-Exit Survivability · w4097+2.56, better
Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture · w2587+0.80, better
Published Pricing Actionability · w2078−0.64, worse
Net8176+5.0
Your scenario
What Dfns costs on your 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
Annual price · published rate$800
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 22 October 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.
$800
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$0.007 of 7 rows priced · Dfns +$800 vs median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · TurnkeyDfns costs +$800 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Turnkey
Evidence
Evidence read 22 October 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #1 across every one-point re-run
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 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Vendor-Exit Survivabilitystrength 9 · weight 40Report an error—22 October 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.Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posturestrength 8 · weight 25Report an error—22 October 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 Pricing Actionabilitystrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—22 October 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.Key-Share Custody Disclosurestrength 9 · weight 15Report an error—22 October 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 (Dfns 9/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Key-Share Custody Disclosure · 15%
- Exit failure (Dfns 9/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Vendor-Exit Survivability · 40%
- Key failure (Dfns 8/10): your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.Scored by Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control 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 Pricing Actionability (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Dfns pricing page (dfns.co/pricing, fetched 22 October 2026): Starter "$800" "per year" ("$200" "per quarter"): "1 user", "10 wallets", "1 blockchain", 100 signatures per month. Basic "$8,000" per year ("$2,000" per quarter): "3 users", "10,000 wallets", "3 blockchains". Pro "$35,000" per year ("$8,750" per quarter): "5 users", "50,000 wallets (+ pay as you go)", "10 blockchains", "Hybrid deployments". Enterprise "Custom": "10 users", "100,000 wallets (+ pay as you go)", "All blockchains", "On-prem deployments". Signature allowances: "100/mo on Starter, 1,000/mo on Basic, 10,000/mo on Pro and 100,000/mo on Enterprise", with "Higher volumes are available. Reach out to discuss your needs." "No AUM fees. No transaction fees." Additional wallets on Pro and Enterprise "are priced on a volume basis" with no published rate. No monthly price is published; the contract term is "Yearly". Free trial: "A 30-day, self-service trial with full access to our sandbox on testnets: all APIs and SDKs, 10 wallets, 1 user, and 100 signatures per month."Dfns — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDDfns — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 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
- Dfns names no excluded country. Its Terms and Conditions (dfns.co/legal/terms-and-conditions, "Last updated: December 3, 2024", read 22 October 2026) set French law and the courts of Paris and bind the customer to "Applicable Laws", defined as "all applicable laws, regulations, regulatory requirements and codes of practice of any relevant jurisdiction, as amended and in force from time to time, including but not limited to AML and KYC."
- CCSS level
- Not on the register as read 15 October 2026 (absent from that page, not a finding that no audit exists)C4 completed CCSS audits register ↗ · 15 October 2026
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Dfns: 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.
9 methodology entries
- 22 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 81, #1 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 mpc_wallets:dfns_mpc:2026.10.18:58008349b535
Are you Dfns? 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.