Provider at a glance
- Category
- Account Abstraction Infra
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- pimlico.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 81 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Pimlico
ERC-4337 bundler and paymaster API
Account Abstraction Infra
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 8 account abstraction infra in the published ranking
81
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Pimlico right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Published price per user operation10/10, the category best
- Exit path without the vendor9/10, the category best
- Verified mainnet chain coverage7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Markup on sponsored gas4/10 here; Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster) scores 10
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 bundler and paymaster service shows where it lands for you.
What will Pimlico cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Usage per month
- 10
How safe is Pimlico?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Pimlico
Compare all 4- 1CandideLevel on score · stronger on sponsored gas markup (9 against 4)81
- 3Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster)1 point below · stronger on sponsored gas markup (10 against 4)80
- 4Alchemy Smart Wallets (Gas Manager and Bundler APIs)5 points below · stronger on sponsored gas markup (6 against 4)76
For your setup
Find out if Pimlico fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Pimlico 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 bundler and paymaster serviceNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Pimlico 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 (25.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 3 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
3010+9.607.510#1/8Loading evidence…
204+2.566.010#7/8Loading evidence…
309+8.646.09#1/8Loading evidence…
207+4.485.57#1/8Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Candide, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 79–81 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 Pimlico’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.
Markup on sponsored gas 4 → 5 on its ladder · passes Candide+181#2 → #1
Exit path without the vendor 9 → 10 on its ladder · passes Candide+181#2 → #1
Verified mainnet chain coverage 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Candide+181#2 → #1
Published price per user operation 10 → 9 on its ladder · Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster) passes it−179#2 → #3
Markup on sponsored gas 4 → 3 on its ladder · Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster) passes it−180#2 → #3
Exit path without the vendor 9 → 8 on its ladder · Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster) passes it−179#2 → #3
Smallest climb: markup on sponsored gas 4 → 5 passes Candide, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Published price per user operation — 10/10, the category best
- Exit path without the vendor — 9/10, the category best
- Verified mainnet chain coverage — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Markup on sponsored gas — 4/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- The ERC-20 paymaster's on-chain posture is weaker than the marketing implies and is stated nowhere in the docs. Calling EntryPoint.getDepositInfo directly on 2026-08-07, the v0.7 paymaster 0x777777777777AeC03fd955926DbF81597e66834C is staked with 0.1 ETH and a 1,209,600-second unstake delay on Base (block 49,671,970) and Arbitrum (block 492,159,197), but on Ethereum mainnet (block 25,705,375) it holds a 1.2600 ETH deposit and is NOT staked, and the v0.8 paymaster 0x888888888888Ec68A58AB8094Cc1AD20Ba3D2402 is unstaked on all three chains read. Under ERC-4337 reputation rules an unstaked paymaster is more readily throttled in the canonical mempool. Separately, the public endpoint that makes exit easy is rate-limited to "20 requests per minute per IP address" and does not sponsor on mainnet, so it is a fallback for recovery, not for production.
Competitive position
Where Pimlico 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#1 / 819.0 of 30 · pool best
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 Pimlico leads
- Published price per user operation#1 / 8
- Exit path without the vendor#1 / 8
- Verified mainnet chain coverage#1 / 8
Where it trails
- Markup on sponsored gas#7 / 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.
Candide#1 of 8 · score 81 · same score
Pimlico leads on
- Published price per user operation10 vs 8
- Verified mainnet chain coverage7 vs 5
Candide leads on
- Markup on sponsored gas9 vs 4
Scenario cost: Candide has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster)#3 of 8 · score 80 · 1.0 point behind
Pimlico leads on
- Published price per user operation10 vs 8
- Exit path without the vendor9 vs 8
- Verified mainnet chain coverage7 vs 5
Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster) leads on
- Markup on sponsored gas10 vs 4
Largest single reason Pimlico is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Etherspot (Skandha Bundler and Arka Paymaster) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Gas Manager and Bundler APIs)#4 of 8 · score 76 · 5.0 points behind
Pimlico leads on
- Published price per user operation10 vs 8
- Exit path without the vendor9 vs 7
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Gas Manager and Bundler APIs) leads on
- Markup on sponsored gas6 vs 4
Largest single reason Pimlico is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Alchemy Smart Wallets (Gas Manager and Bundler APIs) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 81 · gap 0.0Why Candide ranks above Pimlico
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 0.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisCandideGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight19.019.0same
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisCandidePoints
Published price per user operation · w30108+1.92, better
Markup on sponsored gas · w2049−3.20, worse
Verified mainnet chain coverage · w2075+1.28, better
Net81810
Your scenario
Pimlico is not priced for this scenario
Metered usage beyond whatever the plan includes, for a year. Excludes egress, support tiers and enterprise minimums. 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
Usage per month · your input10
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 27 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 27 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 #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 27 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published price per user operationstrength 10 · weight 30Report an error—27 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.Markup on sponsored gasstrength 4 · weight 20Report an error—27 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.Exit path without the vendorstrength 9 · weight 30Report an error—27 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.Verified mainnet chain coveragestrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—27 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
- Exit failure (Pimlico 9/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Exit path without the vendor · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Liveness 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 price per user operation (30%), Markup on sponsored gas (20%), Verified mainnet chain coverage (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Pay-as-you-go on pimlico.io/pricing (fetched 27 September 2026, HTTP 200): "$0 per month, card required", "10,000,000 credits / month included", "Then $1 per additional 100,000 credits", "~$0.0075 per user operation (~$0.0105 sponsored)" and "10% surcharge on sponsored gas (mainnet)"; the same page's FAQ adds "a default billing threshold of $1,000 per month". The docs pricing page (docs.pimlico.io/guides/pricing, fetched 27 September 2026) states the assumption behind the headline: "The simulation assumes 750 API credits per unsponsored user operation and 1,050 API credits per sponsored user operation." At 1 US dollar per 100,000 credits, 750 credits is 0.0075 US dollars and 1,050 credits is 0.0105, so the headline is internally consistent. WORKED EXAMPLE (ChainChoice arithmetic, 27 September 2026, 50,000 operations in one month on Base): unsponsored = 37,500,000 credits, less the 10,000,000 included, leaves 27,500,000 billable = 275.00 US dollars; sponsored = 52,500,000 credits, less 10,000,000 included, leaves 42,500,000 billable = 425.00 US dollars, plus 10 percent of the actual gas fronted. Every price string is unchanged from 7 August 2026.Pimlico — official pricing page ↗ · 27 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDPimlico — official pricing page ↗ · 27 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, Arbitrum Nova, Optimism, Avalanche, BNB Chain, Zora, Mantle, Berachain, Blast, Celo, Gnosis, HyperEVM, Linea, Mode, Monad, Moonbeam, opBNB, Scroll, Sei, Sonic, Unichain, World Chain, Etherlink, Fuse, Kaia, Plume, Story
- 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 Pimlico: 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.
8 methodology entries
- 27 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 81, #2 of 8. 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 account_abstraction_infra:pimlico:2026.10.18:6b8236f323c9
Are you Pimlico? 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.