Provider at a glance
- Category
- MPC & Embedded Wallets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- magic.link
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 57 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Magic
Embedded wallet SDK
MPC & Embedded Wallets
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 MPC & embedded wallets in the published ranking
57
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is Magic right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Vendor-Exit Survivability4/10 here; Zengo scores 8
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture4/10 here; Turnkey scores 8
- Published Pricing Actionability6/10 here; Turnkey scores 8
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure4/10 here; Zengo scores 7
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 Magic cost you?
$0.00 your cost/yr
- Transactions per year
- 1k
- Monthly price
- $0
Level with the median of 7 priced MPC & embedded wallets.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Magic?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Magic
Compare all 4- 4Turnkey17 points above · stronger on exit survivability mpc (7 against 4)74$0.00
- 5Zengo14 points above · stronger on exit survivability mpc (8 against 4)71$0.00
- 6Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets)8 points above · stronger on exit survivability mpc (6 against 4)65$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Magic fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Magic 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 this rank
Why Magic ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (14.1 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
404+5.127.09#7/7Loading evidence…
254+3.207.08#6/7Loading evidence…
206+3.847.08#6/7Loading evidence…
154+1.927.09#7/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−8behind Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets), #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 54–59 and stays #7
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 Magic’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 4 → 8 on its ladder · passes Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets)+466#7 → #6
Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture 4 → 10 on its ladder · passes Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets)+666#7 → #6
Smallest climb: vendor-Exit Survivability 4 → 8 passes Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets), #6.
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
- Vendor-Exit Survivability — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture — 4/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Published Pricing Actionability — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Do not sign anything here without establishing who your counterparty is. Magic Labs is now Newton Labs and is building an unrelated product (Newton Protocol, an onchain authorization layer, mainnet beta June 2026, first product VaultKit); the wallet business is being sold to Payward, whose 14 August 2026 letter still says 'once the acquisition closes'. CEO Sean Li: 'This transition allows us to put our full energy behind Newton.' Terms of the sale were not disclosed. Existing customers should obtain written confirmation of contract novation, the new SLA, the new data controller for user records, and — most importantly — a key-export path that survives the next transfer: the documented one, user.revealEVMPrivateKey, works only where the integrator has implemented it, and keys are recombined inside Magic's TEE.
- The transaction was announced as an agreement, not a completed sale. The Block: 'Magic Labs has agreed to sell its embedded wallet business to Payward.' The Businesswire release is titled 'Payward to Acquire Magic Labs' Wallet Infrastructure Business' — future tense, pending close. Confirmed as an asset sale with undisclosed terms, but the research's completed-transfer framing is not supported, which materially weakens the pricing deduction ('a buyer can budget against terms whose counterparty has changed') and the audit deduction ('Magic Labs no longer operates the service').
Competitive position
Where Magic 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#7 / 710.6 of 30 · best 20.0
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 Magic leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Vendor-Exit Survivability#7 / 7
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture#6 / 7
- Published Pricing Actionability#6 / 7
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure#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.
Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets)#6 of 7 · score 65 · 8.0 points ahead
Magic leads onNo scored criterion
Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets) leads on
- Vendor-Exit Survivability6 vs 4
- Published Pricing Actionability7 vs 6
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure7 vs 4
Largest single reason Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets) is ahead: published criteria (+8.8 display points).Scenario cost: Web3Auth (now MetaMask Embedded Wallets) is the same.
Zengo#5 of 7 · score 71 · 14.0 points ahead
Magic leads onNo scored criterion
Zengo leads on
- Vendor-Exit Survivability8 vs 4
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture5 vs 4
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure7 vs 4
Largest single reason Zengo is ahead: published criteria (+14.3 display points).Scenario cost: Zengo is the same.
Turnkey#4 of 7 · score 74 · 17.0 points ahead
Magic leads onNo scored criterion
Turnkey leads on
- Vendor-Exit Survivability7 vs 4
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture8 vs 4
- Published Pricing Actionability8 vs 6
Largest single reason Turnkey is ahead: published criteria (+17.2 display points).Scenario cost: Turnkey is the same.
Against the leader
81 vs 57 · gap 24.0Why Dfns ranks above Magic
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 24.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisDfnsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight10.620.0−24.4, 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 criterionThisDfnsPoints
Vendor-Exit Survivability · w4049−6.40, worse
Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture · w2548−3.20, worse
Published Pricing Actionability · w2067−0.64, worse
Key-Share Custody Disclosure · w1549−2.40, worse
Net5781−24.0
Your scenario
What Magic 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
Monthly price · published rate$0
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.
$0.00
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$0.007 of 7 rows priced · Magic at the median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · TurnkeyMagic costs the same · 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 #7 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 4 · 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 4 · 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 6 · 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 4 · 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 (Magic 4/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Key-Share Custody Disclosure · 15%
- Exit failure (Magic 4/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Vendor-Exit Survivability · 40%
- Key failure (Magic 4/10): 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
- Magic pricing page (magic.link/pricing, fetched 22 October 2026): Developer "1,000 Monthly Active Wallets + 50,000 signatures", "$0.045 per additional MAW / $0.005 per additional signature", "$ 0 /mo". Startup "2,500 Monthly Active Wallets + 50,000 signatures", "$0.04 per additional MAW / $0.005 per additional signature", "$ 99 /mo", "Up to 5 Team Seats". Enterprise "Custom Pricing"; its signature allowance and overage read "Contact sales". Billing toggle: "Monthly Annual (10% off)", with no annual figure printed. Signatures are no longer unlimited: the FAQ (expanded in a browser the same day) says all non-Enterprise plans "include 50,000 signatures per team each calendar month" and "Each additional signature costs $0.005." The page and the Terms still read as Magic Labs, Inc.; Payward's definitive agreement to buy the wallet business (announced 27 July 2026) shows no closing notice on payward.com/newsroom as of 22 October 2026. Lowest public tier: 0 USD per month (Developer).Magic — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDMagic — 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
- Magic's Terms of Service (magic.link/legal/terms-of-service, "Effective Date: May 7, 2025", read 22 October 2026) list among prohibited uses one that "Violates any applicable law or regulation, including any related to the custody and/or transmission of money and/or Virtual Currency, and/or applicable anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws and sanctions programs;" and one that "Restricts use in any Embargoed Countries or by restricted or prohibited parties;" (evidently meant as a bar on use in embargoed countries). "Embargoed Countries" is not defined or listed, so no country can be named.
- 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 Magic: 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 57, #7 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:magic_mpc:2026.10.18:58008349b535
Are you Magic? 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.