Provider at a glance
- Category
- Staking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- everstake.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 67 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Everstake
Non-custodial validator operator
Staking
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 7 staking in the published ranking
67
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Everstake right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Rate transparency7/10, the category best
- Lock-up disclosure7/10; the category best is 8
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Slashing cover1/10 here; Figment scores 5
- Voting from custody6/10 here; Chorus One 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 staking platform shows where it lands for you.
What will Everstake cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Everstake?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Everstake
Compare all 4- 3Chorus One6 points above · stronger on slashing cover (3 against 1)73
- 4Figment5 points above · stronger on slashing cover (5 against 1)72
- 6Twinstake6 points below · stronger on slashing cover (2 against 1)61
For your setup
Find out if Everstake fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Everstake 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 staking platformNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Everstake ranks #5
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (15.2 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
341+1.093.09#7/7Loading evidence…
227+4.936.08#2/7Loading evidence…
247+5.386.07#1/7Loading evidence…
206+3.846.09#3/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind Figment, #4
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 65–69 and stays #5
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 Everstake’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.
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes Figment+374#5 → #3
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Figment+372#5 → #4
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Figment+472#5 → #4
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? 7 → 2 on its ladder · Twinstake passes it−561#5 → #6
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? 7 → 2 on its ladder · Twinstake passes it−560#5 → #6
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? 6 → 0 on its ladder · Twinstake passes it−660#5 → #6
Smallest climb: “If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?” 1 → 4 passes Figment, #4.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? — 7/10, the category best
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? — 7/10, category best 8/10
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Read the Terms of Use before you read the Ethereum page. Everstake names no insurer, no limit and no policy anywhere, and the one word that suggested cover is gone: the "Everstake's Insured and Auto-Compounding Staking Solution" line its Ethereum page carried in August was absent on 2026-09-28, when "insur" occurred 0 times on https://everstake.com/staking/protocols/ethereum (the old everstake.one address now 301-redirects there) and its only slashing mention was a generic risk line. Meanwhile https://everstake.com/terms-of-use states in writing: "Everstake shall not be held liable for any losses incurred due to slashing penalties imposed by a Blockchain Network", with all remaining liability capped at "the maximum of the Validator Fees paid by you to us during the six (6) month period preceding the event causing such liability" and any claim waived unless notified in writing within six months. On a 7% commission, that cap is roughly 3.5% of one year's rewards on the affected stake — an amount that would not cover a meaningful slashing event, let alone the stake. Everstake's compensating strength is real and unusually rare: a numeric commission on most networks it documents, a 14-day fee-change notice, and an explicit self-serve-versus-institutional tier split, all published without a sales call. Two caveats on that price transparency, both found on re-verification: the Aleo and Monad pages each print TWO contradictory Everstake fees (Aleo 5% in the hero vs 10% in the staking details; Monad 15% in the hero vs 5% in the staking details), so confirm your network's rate in writing rather than trusting the headline number; and eleven of the 33 protocol URLs in Everstake's own sitemap do not resolve to a protocol page at all, serving the generic staking index instead. Buy it for price transparency and custody-workflow fit, not for loss protection, and if slashing indemnity matters, get it written into the institutional agreement in figures with a named underwriter — because on the public record no such instrument exists.
Competitive position
Where Everstake 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#5 / 711.4 of 30 · best 15.9
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 Everstake leads
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?#2 / 7
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?#1 / 7
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?#3 / 7
Where it trails
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?#7 / 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.
Figment#4 of 7 · score 72 · 5.0 points ahead
Everstake leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?7 vs 6
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?7 vs 6
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?6 vs 5
Figment leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?5 vs 1
Largest single reason Figment is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Figment has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Twinstake#6 of 7 · score 61 · 6.0 points behind
Everstake leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?7 vs 6
- Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?7 vs 2
Twinstake leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?2 vs 1
Largest single reason Everstake is ahead: published criteria (+6.8 display points).Scenario cost: Twinstake has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Chorus One#3 of 7 · score 73 · 6.0 points ahead
Everstake leads on
- How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?7 vs 5
Chorus One leads on
- If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?3 vs 1
- Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?9 vs 6
Largest single reason Chorus One is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Chorus One has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 67 · gap 12.0Why Kiln ranks above Everstake
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.
DimensionThisKilnGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight11.415.9−11.7, 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 criterionThisKilnPoints
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · w3416−5.44, worse
How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · w2278−0.70, worse
Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? · w2476+0.77, better
Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · w2067−0.64, worse
Net6779−12.0
Your scenario
Everstake is not priced for this scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/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 median and cheapestNot statedOnly 1 of 7 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
6 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 28 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #5 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 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque?strength 1 · weight 34Report an error—28 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 long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed?strength 7 · weight 22Report an error—28 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.Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call?strength 7 · weight 24Report an error—28 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.Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button?strength 6 · weight 20Report an error—28 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
- Control failure (Everstake 6/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · 20%
- Insolvency failure (Everstake 1/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · 34%
- Exit failure (Everstake 7/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · 22%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution 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: Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? (24%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Everstake's Ethereum page (https://
everstake .com /staking /protocols /ethereum; the old everstake.one address now 301-redirects there; fetched 28 September 2026) prints a three-tier table. Easy Stake: "Stake as little as 0.01 ETH with Everstake.", Fee "10%". Institutional: "Stake $500K+ worth of ETH with Everstake.", Fee "Lower". Custom: "Stake 320+ ETH with Everstake and enjoy special conditions.", Fee "Custom", with "Contact Us". The page summary repeats "Everstake offers non-custodial Ethereum staking from as low as 0.01 ETH , with a 10% commission and current APR 3.4 - 10% on staking rewards." So 10% is the published self-serve rate; the institutional rate is printed only as the word "Lower" and the custom rate is set in a sales conversation. The Terms of Use say fees are a percentage of staking rewards and may be changed on 14 days' notice on the website.Everstake — official page at everstake.com ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDEverstake — official page at everstake.com ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Solana, Cardano, Polygon, Aptos, Cosmos, Sui, NEAR, Sei, MultiversX, Aleo, Celer, ICON, Neo, Wormhole, Celestia, Stader, Monad, EigenLayer, Babylon, Vaulta, Story Protocol, Obol Collective, Canton, Axelar, Kava, Neon, Nillion, Somnia, Chainlink, Injective, Lido, Tezos
- 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 Everstake: 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
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 67, #5 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 11 October 2026
2026.10.9No live feed or market rate moves a score- fixed Lending and borrowing: the borrow rate leaves the fee term, which now scores every protocol alike, so the category ranks on its four published criteria. Venus, first on those criteria, moves from #7 to #1; Spark stays #2; Morpho moves from #1 to #3 and Compound from #8 to #6.
- fixed Exchanges: the fee term reads each exchange's taker fee from the catalog instead of a table dated 1 April. Kraken (0.80 %) moves from #6 to #9 and Gemini (1.20 %) from #10 to #11; Coinbase, Luno, Bitvavo and VALR each move up one place, and Bybit stays #1.
- removed Staking: a yield no longer stands in for a staking provider's missing commission. No published score moves.
- added /methodology/live-data publishes which numbers may move a score; on every build a test fills each live feed with extreme values and fails if a single score moves.
- 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 staking:everstake:2026.10.18:03cb591b310e
Are you Everstake? 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.