Provider at a glance
- Category
- Wallets
- Entity
- All 6 MetaMask products
- Official website
- metamask.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
MetaMask
Self-custody EVM wallet
Wallets
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 11 wallets in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is MetaMask right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?9/10; the category best is 10
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?8/10, the category best
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?6/10 here; Rabby Wallet scores 8
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 MetaMask cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is MetaMask?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- Incidents3 dated incidents on the verified record; the latest, vulnerability at MetaMask SDK, 12 September 2025.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no authorisation required. The register record
Alternatives to MetaMask
Compare all 4- 1Rabby Wallet1 point above · stronger on clear signing (8 against 6)81
- 3Trust WalletLevel on score · stronger on clear signing (8 against 6)80
- 4Phantom2 points below · stronger on clear signing (7 against 6)78
For your setup
Find out if MetaMask fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where MetaMask 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 MetaMask ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (25.2 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
289+8.068.010#2/11Loading evidence…
306+5.765.08#5/11Loading evidence…
248+6.146.08#1/11Loading evidence…
189+5.188.09#1/11Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Rabby Wallet, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 78–81 and ranks #1–#3
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 MetaMask’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 export my own keys and use them elsewhere? 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Rabby Wallet+181#2 → #1
Can I see exactly what I am signing? 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Rabby Wallet+181#2 → #1
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Rabby Wallet+181#2 → #1
If I lose my device, how do I get back in? 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Rabby Wallet+181#2 → #1
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? 9 → 8 on its ladder · Trust Wallet passes it−178#2 → #3
Can I see exactly what I am signing? 6 → 5 on its ladder · Trust Wallet passes it−178#2 → #3
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? 8 → 7 on its ladder · Trust Wallet passes it−178#2 → #3
Smallest climb: “Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?” 9 → 10 passes Rabby Wallet, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? — 9/10, category best 10/10
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? — 8/10, the category best
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in? — 9/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Can I see exactly what I am signing? — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Read the fine print behind the three security claims on metamask.io before treating them as the product. All three are true and all three are narrower than they read. "Transaction protection available up to $10k" is not a wallet feature: it is Transaction Shield, "$9.99 monthly or $99 yearly", "Early access is now available on MetaMask Extension" only, capped at "Coverage of up to 100 transactions per month", and it explicitly "does not cover transactions deemed malicious by MetaMask" — so it does not pay out on the flagged case you most fear, and it does not exist on mobile. "Regularly audited by security firms" is backed by 17 genuinely public report links across 15 dated entries, but no report published since 2022 audits the shipped application itself: the 2023-2024 entries cover libraries, Snaps and build hardening, and the 2025 entries audit the mUSD stablecoin contract. And the pre-signature preview most buyers assume they are getting is, per MetaMask's own page (re-read 2026-09-28), available only "for contract interactions", not for native transfers; the enforced onchain simulation that reverts a transaction when execution diverges from the preview covers 15 named networks but is on by default only for "MetaMask smart accounts on Extension", and no page says what the confirmation screen shows when a simulation cannot be produced. If you pair a hardware device, two MetaMask troubleshooting pages tell you to enable blind signing, one of them with no qualifier at all. Finally, the exit that makes this record strong — pulling your encrypted vault out of local storage and decrypting it offline — is Chromium-desktop-only: MetaMask's own recovery page says it is "not currently possible" on Android or iOS, that the iOS method "is no longer working", that an Android solution is still being worked on, and that Firefox's data-encoding changes have made the instructions "of limited use".
Competitive position
Where MetaMask 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#2 / 1118.9 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 MetaMask leads
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?#2 / 11
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?#1 / 11
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?#1 / 11
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.
Trust Wallet#3 of 11 · score 80 · same score
MetaMask leads on
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?9 vs 8
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?9 vs 7
Trust Wallet leads on
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?8 vs 6
Largest single reason MetaMask is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: Trust Wallet has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Rabby Wallet#1 of 11 · score 81 · 1.0 point ahead
MetaMask leads on
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?8 vs 7
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?9 vs 8
Rabby Wallet leads on
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?8 vs 6
Largest single reason Rabby Wallet is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Rabby Wallet has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Phantom#4 of 11 · score 78 · 2.0 points behind
MetaMask leads on
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?9 vs 8
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?9 vs 7
Phantom leads on
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?7 vs 6
Largest single reason MetaMask is ahead: published criteria (+2.3 display points).Scenario cost: Phantom has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 80 · gap 1.0Why Rabby Wallet ranks above MetaMask
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 1.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisRabby WalletGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.919.3−1.0, 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 see exactly what I am signing? · w3068−1.92, worse
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? · w2487+0.77, better
If I lose my device, how do I get back in? · w1898+0.58, better
Net8081−1.0
Your scenario
MetaMask 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 #1 to #3 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 9 · 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 6 · 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 8 · 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 9 · 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% (MetaMask 9/10)Scored by Can I see exactly what I am signing? · 30% (MetaMask 6/10)Scored by What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? · 24% (MetaMask 8/10)Scored by If I lose my device, how do I get back in? · 18% (MetaMask 9/10)
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
- "Subscribing to Transaction Shield is $9.99 monthly or $99 yearly, and includes: Transaction Protection of up to $10,000 per month for eligible interactions", with "Coverage of up to 100 transactions per month", "Try it free for 14 days." and "Early access is now available on MetaMask Extension." (support.metamask.io/manage-crypto/transactions/transaction-shield/, fetched 28 October 2026). The wallet client itself carries no download or subscription price on any vendor page; MetaMask monetises through transaction fees, both vendor-stated on their own pages: the buy FAQ says "MetaMask receives a 1% fee on every transaction, calculated as a percentage of the fiat value you request" (support.metamask.io/manage-crypto/move-crypto/buy/faqs/, fetched 28 October 2026), and the swaps guide breaks a quote into "Quote rate", "Network fee" and "MetaMask fee: 0.875%" (support.metamask.io/trade/swap/user-guide-swaps/, fetched 28 October 2026).MetaMask — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDMetaMask — official pricing page ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Polygon, Linea, Avalanche, BNB Smart Chain, opBNB, Scroll, zkSync, Blast, Berachain, Sei, Soneium, Monad, HyperEVM, Immutable zkEVM, MetachainOne, Solana, Bitcoin, Tron
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- The wallet client is globally distributed with no geographic gate on any vendor page; the only stated limits are standard sanctions representations in the governing Consensys Terms of Use (consensys.io/terms-of-use, re-read by me 17 August 2026): you represent you are "(1) not subject to sanctions or otherwise designated on any list of prohibited or restricted parties" — the clause names the UN Security Council, the U.S. SDN and Foreign Sanctions Evaders lists, the Commerce Entity List, the EU and its Member States and the United Kingdom — "and (2) not located in any country subject to a comprehensive sanctions program implemented by the United States". Bundled commercial features are narrower than the wallet: Transaction Shield is Extension-only early access, and MetaMask Card, Perps and tokenised-RWA trading carry their own separate regional eligibility not verified in this record.
Legal entity on file: MetaMask, placed in 6 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
Failure record
Incident timeline
Dated events at MetaMask 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 MetaMask.
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 MetaMask: 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 80, #2 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:metamask:2026.10.18:5e5eb5e5d811
Are you MetaMask? 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.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of MetaMask , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.