Provider at a glance
- Category
- Privacy Tools
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- fluidkey.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 54 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Fluidkey
Stealth-address wallet
Privacy Tools
#8 Overall
Ranked #8 of 8 privacy tools in the published ranking
54
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Fluidkey right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Audit currency and admin keys5/10; the category best is 6
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability4/10 here; Penumbra scores 7
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy3/10 here; Zama Confidential Tokens scores 4
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage1/10 here; Zama Confidential Tokens scores 4
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 privacy tool shows where it lands for you.
What will Fluidkey cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Fluidkey?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Fluidkey
Compare all 4- 5Penumbra5 points above · stronger on pt crypto setup (7 against 4)59
- 6Zama Confidential Tokens4 points above · stronger on pt anonymity set (4 against 1)58
- 7Aztec NetworkLevel on score · stronger on pt crypto setup (6 against 4)54
For your setup
Find out if Fluidkey fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Fluidkey 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 privacy toolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Fluidkey ranks #8
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (10.2 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
304+3.846.08#7/8Loading evidence…
253+2.403.08#4/8Loading evidence…
251+0.803.510#6/8Loading evidence…
205+3.205.06#4/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Aztec Network, #7
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 52–56 and ranks #7–#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 Fluidkey’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.
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Aztec Network+156#8 → #7
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy 3 → 4 on its ladder · passes Aztec Network+156#8 → #7
Live anonymity set and measurable usage 1 → 2 on its ladder · passes Aztec Network+156#8 → #7
Audit currency and admin keys 5 → 6 on its ladder · passes Aztec Network+156#8 → #7
Smallest climb: cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability 4 → 5 passes Aztec Network, #7.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Audit currency and admin keys — 5/10, category best 6/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy — 3/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage — 1/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- This is a privacy-flavoured neobank, not a shielded pool, and buyers comparing it against Railgun or Privacy Pools are comparing different products. It hides your counterparties from the public, not your identity from Fluidkey or its banking partners. Your free bank-transfer allowance is also gated on a proprietary Fluidkey Score, an undisclosed metric that determines whether your monthly free limit is $3,000 or $20,000 before the 0.3% fee applies, so an opaque internal score sets your price.
Competitive position
Where Fluidkey 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 / 814.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#7 / 87.7 of 30 · best 17.6
Friction#1 / 82.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 83.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 88.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Fluidkey leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability#7 / 8
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage#6 / 8
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.
Aztec Network#7 of 8 · score 54 · same score
Fluidkey leads on
- Audit currency and admin keys5 vs 2
Aztec Network leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability6 vs 4
Scenario cost: Aztec Network has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Zama Confidential Tokens#6 of 8 · score 58 · 4.0 points ahead
Fluidkey leads on
- Audit currency and admin keys5 vs 3
Zama Confidential Tokens leads on
- Compliance signal without collapsing privacy4 vs 3
- Live anonymity set and measurable usage4 vs 1
Largest single reason Zama Confidential Tokens is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Zama Confidential Tokens has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Penumbra#5 of 8 · score 59 · 5.0 points ahead
Fluidkey leads on
- Audit currency and admin keys5 vs 4
Penumbra leads on
- Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability7 vs 4
Largest single reason Penumbra is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Penumbra has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 54 · gap 26.0Why Railgun ranks above Fluidkey
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; a row-above bound on one of the rows keeps the reproduced gap (25.7) from matching the displayed one exactly, which is stated rather than hidden.
DimensionThisRailgunGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight7.717.6−25.7, 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 criterionThisRailgunPoints
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · w3048−3.84, worse
Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · w2538−4.00, worse
Live anonymity set and measurable usage · w2517−4.80, worse
Audit currency and admin keys · w2056−0.64, worse
Net5480−26.0≈
Your scenario
Fluidkey 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 15 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 8 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
8 of 8 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 15 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 #7 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 15 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiabilitystrength 4 · weight 30Report an error—15 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.Compliance signal without collapsing privacystrength 3 · weight 25Report an error—15 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.Live anonymity set and measurable usagestrength 1 · weight 25Report an error—15 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.Audit currency and admin keysstrength 5 · weight 20Report an error—15 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 (Fluidkey 5/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit currency and admin keys · 20%
- Verification failure (Fluidkey 4/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Cryptographic guarantee and setup verifiability · 30%
- Regulatory failure (Fluidkey 3/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Compliance signal without collapsing privacy · 25%
- Information failure (Fluidkey 1/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Live anonymity set and measurable usage · 25%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Beyond your free monthly limit, a flat 0.3% fee will apply to bank transfers. Free limits: Fluidkey Score below 10k: $3,000 per calendar month; Fluidkey Score over 10k: $20,000 per calendar month. Fedwire and SWIFT transfers incur a flat $25 fee per transaction.Fluidkey — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDFluidkey — official pricing page ↗ · 15 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
- The wallet is available without a country list. Bank transfers (the priced feature) require KYC with partner Noah and are unavailable to residents of Noah's fully prohibited list, which includes the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Panama, Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria among 31 jurisdictions; others (including the United States for SEPA, and Japan for SEPA) are limited to some rails. EU users cannot use USDT.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Fluidkey: 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
- 15 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 54, #8 of 8. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 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 privacy_tools:fluidkey_stealth:2026.10.18:33d51dce1302
Are you Fluidkey? 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.