Provider at a glance
- Category
- Wallets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- electrum.org
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 66 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Electrum
Open-source Bitcoin desktop and Android wallet
Wallets
#9 Overall
Ranked #9 of 11 wallets in the published ranking
66
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Electrum right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?5/10 here; the category best is 8
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?6/10 here; Rainbow scores 8
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?6/10 here; Coinbase Wallet scores 7
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?6/10 here; Rainbow 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 crypto wallet shows where it lands for you.
What will Electrum cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Electrum?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- Incidents1 dated incident on the verified record; the latest, phishing, December 2018.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Electrum
Compare all 4- 8Rainbow1 point above · stronger on key export (8 against 6)67
- 10OKX WalletLevel on score66
- 11Coinbase WalletLevel on score · stronger on incident record (7 against 6)66
For your setup
Find out if Electrum fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Electrum 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 crypto walletNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Electrum ranks #9
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.2 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
286+5.388.010#8/11Loading evidence…
305+4.805.08#6/11Loading evidence…
246+4.616.08#6/11Loading evidence…
186+3.468.09#9/11Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Rainbow, #8
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 65–68 and ranks #7–#11
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 Electrum’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.
Can I see exactly what I am signing? 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Rainbow+168#9 → #7
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Rainbow+168#9 → #8
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Rainbow+168#9 → #8
If I lose my device, how do I get back in? 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Rainbow+167#9 → #8
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? 6 → 5 on its ladder · OKX Wallet passes it−165#9 → #11
Can I see exactly what I am signing? 5 → 4 on its ladder · OKX Wallet passes it−165#9 → #11
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? 6 → 5 on its ladder · OKX Wallet passes it−165#9 → #11
Smallest climb: “Can I see exactly what I am signing?” 5 → 6 passes Rainbow, #8.
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
- Can I see exactly what I am signing? — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Electrum does not create BIP-39 seeds. Its own seed format is published ("Electrum does not generate BIP39 seeds", electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/seedphrase.html, read 2026-10-28), but fewer wallets import it than import BIP-39, so check that the wallet you might move to reads Electrum seeds before relying on the phrase alone. Download it only from electrum.org: in December 2018 malicious servers pushed a fake "update" through the client's error popup, the maintainers disclosed it on their own repository (github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/4968), and versions from 3.3.3 on no longer render that text. Bitcoin only.
Competitive position
Where Electrum 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 / 1114.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#9 / 1113.7 of 30 · best 19.3
Friction#1 / 112.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 113.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 118.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Electrum leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?#8 / 11
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?#9 / 11
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.
OKX Wallet#10 of 11 · score 66 · same score
Electrum leads onNo scored criterion
OKX Wallet leads onNo scored criterion
Scenario cost: OKX Wallet has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Coinbase Wallet#11 of 11 · score 66 · same score
Electrum leads on
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?6 vs 5
Coinbase Wallet leads on
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?7 vs 6
Largest single reason Electrum is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: Coinbase Wallet has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Rainbow#8 of 11 · score 67 · 1.0 point ahead
Electrum leads on
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?6 vs 2
Rainbow leads on
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?8 vs 6
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?9 vs 6
Largest single reason Rainbow is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Rainbow has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 66 · gap 15.0Why Rabby Wallet ranks above Electrum
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 15.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRabby WalletGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.719.3−14.6, 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 criterionThisRabby WalletPoints
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? · w2869−2.69, worse
Can I see exactly what I am signing? · w3058−2.88, worse
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? · w2467−0.77, worse
If I lose my device, how do I get back in? · w1868−1.15, worse
Net6681−15.0
Your scenario
Electrum 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 28 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.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 11 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
11 of 11 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 17 August 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 #7 to #11 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 17 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?strength 6 · weight 28Report an error—17 August 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.Can I see exactly what I am signing?strength 5 · weight 30Report an error—17 August 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 has gone wrong, and did they publish it?strength 6 · weight 24Report an error—17 August 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.If I lose my device, how do I get back in?strength 6 · weight 18Report an error—17 August 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
- Key failure: your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.Scored by Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? · 28% (Electrum 6/10)Scored by Can I see exactly what I am signing? · 30% (Electrum 5/10)Scored by What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? · 24% (Electrum 6/10)Scored by If I lose my device, how do I get back in? · 18% (Electrum 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- "Electrum is distributed under the MIT licence by Electrum Technologies GmbH." (electrum.org, fetched 28 October 2026). The same page is the download page for Linux, Windows, macOS and Android and states no price, subscription or service fee; the only cost of a payment is the network fee the user sets. Electrum has no in-app token swap; its submarine swaps between on-chain bitcoin and Lightning run through swap servers whose fees electrum.org does not state.Electrum — official download page ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDElectrum — official download page ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Bitcoin
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- No geographic restriction is stated on electrum.org (read 28 October 2026): the page offers the same downloads to everyone, and its legal notice says "we do not store user account data, and we are not an intermediary in the interaction between our software and the Bitcoin blockchain".
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
Failure record
Incident timeline
Dated events at Electrum that a verified research record holds, newest first: the record’s own words, the date it gives, the source, and what ChainChoice’s read did where the record links the two.
Reading the incident record for Electrum.
When an event that meets the extraordinary-review rule is found, the placement is re-read within 72 hours and carries a label until then. The timeline itself never moves a score. How reviews work
If something goes wrong with Electrum: 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.
11 methodology entries
- 17 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 66, #9 of 11. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 28 October 2026
2026.10.15Software wallets rank three more wallets and name Ledger Wallet as refused- added Three rows, each graded on all four criteria with a quote and source for every score and placed on the published rungs (research-pending/rereads/2026-09-28-wallet.json, rows read 2026-10-28; every quote re-found verbatim on a fresh fetch or in the page captures kept in research-pending/captures/2026-10-28-wallet/): Sparrow Wallet 6/5/5/9 (BIP-39 with the derivation path shown, every input and output decoded before signing, no documented single-key export, a disclosure policy but no bounty or audit); Electrum 6/5/6/6 (its own published seed format, not BIP-39, with no stated path, private-key export, a pre-signing preview, a 2018 phishing incident it disclosed itself and six dated advisories); OKX Wallet 6/5/6/6 (seed and per-network private-key export with no stated path, a named in-house scanner but no documented simulation, a funded HackerOne bounty and an opened SlowMist wallet audit, no advisory archive). Scores in the order key export, signing visibility, incident record, recovery and exit.
- added Refusal: Ledger Wallet (formerly Ledger Live), a hardware device's companion app; Ledger's own page says "Transactions are approved on a Ledger device, which is bought separately." (ledger.com/ledger-wallet, read 2026-10-28). It points to hardware_wallet.
- changed The custodial scope rule no longer drops OKX Wallet: it now records the 2026-08-16 drop and why it was reversed.
- changed Published wallet order: 11 rows (8 before). The #1 is unchanged (Rabby Wallet, 81). Sparrow Wallet enters at #7 (68), Electrum at #9 (66) and OKX Wallet at #10 (66, the same weighted total as Electrum, 41.9, and the same score on every criterion, so the published tie order decides). Two rows move down at an unchanged score: Rainbow #7 → #8 (67) and Coinbase Wallet #8 → #11 (66). The other six keep their rank and score.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt wallet:electrum:2026.10.18:5e5eb5e5d811
Are you Electrum? 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.