Provider at a glance
- Category
- MPC & Embedded Wallets
- Entity
- All 2 Privy products
- Official website
- privy.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 75 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Privy
Embedded wallets from Stripe
MPC & Embedded Wallets
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 7 MPC & embedded wallets in the published ranking
75
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $0.00 your cost/yr
Is Privy right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture8/10, the category best
- Published Pricing Actionability8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Vendor-Exit Survivability7/10 here; Zengo scores 8
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure6/10 here; Portal 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 MPC wallet shows where it lands for you.
What will Privy 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 Privy?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Privy
Compare all 4- 2Portal1 point above · stronger on share custody model mpc (9 against 6)76$0.00
- 4Turnkey1 point below · weaker on share custody model mpc (5 against 6)74$0.00
- 5Zengo4 points below · stronger on exit survivability mpc (8 against 7)71$0.00
For your setup
Find out if Privy fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Privy 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 Privy ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (23.4 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
407+8.967.09#3/7Loading evidence…
258+6.407.08#1/7Loading evidence…
208+5.127.08#1/7Loading evidence…
156+2.887.09#5/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Portal, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 72–77 and ranks #2–#4
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 Privy’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 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Portal+177#3 → #2
Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Portal+176#3 → #2
Published Pricing Actionability 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Portal+277#3 → #2
Key-Share Custody Disclosure 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Portal+276#3 → #2
Vendor-Exit Survivability 7 → 6 on its ladder · Turnkey passes it−172#3 → #4
Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture 8 → 7 on its ladder · Turnkey passes it−173#3 → #4
Published Pricing Actionability 8 → 7 on its ladder · Turnkey passes it−173#3 → #4
Smallest climb: vendor-Exit Survivability 7 → 8 passes Portal, #2.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture — 8/10, the category best
- Published Pricing Actionability — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Vendor-Exit Survivability — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Acquired by Stripe, announced 11 June 2025, terms undisclosed; Privy said it 'will continue as an independent product', following the pattern Stripe used with Bridge. That resolves the balance-sheet risk and creates a strategic one — your wallet layer is now owned by a payments company that competes with some of its customers. Also note the export caveat is not theoretical: check whether your specific integrator has enabled the 2-of-2 app-controlled quorum before assuming you can leave.
- There is no 'Growth' tier on Privy's pricing page. The ladder is: free tier 0-499 MAU, 'Scale' $299/M for 500-2,499 MAU, and 'Scale' $499/M for 2,500-9,999 MAU. BOTH paid tiers carry the same name. The real anomaly is a duplicate tier name, not an inversion — and the 'inverted tier names' uncomfortableFinding must be deleted, not edited. The Base/Growth/Scale ladder the research describes is Web3Auth/MetaMask's, which suggests cross-provider contamination. Read again 15 September 2026: the paid tiers are now named 'Core' ($299/month, 500–2,499 MAU) and 'Scale' ($499/month, 2,500–9,999 MAU), so the duplicate name is gone.
Competitive position
Where Privy 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#3 / 717.5 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 Privy leads
- Vendor-Exit Survivability#3 / 7
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture#1 / 7
- Published Pricing Actionability#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure#5 / 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.
Portal#2 of 7 · score 76 · 1.0 point ahead
Privy leads on
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture8 vs 7
Portal leads on
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure9 vs 6
Largest single reason Portal is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Portal is the same.
Turnkey#4 of 7 · score 74 · 1.0 point behind
Privy leads on
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure6 vs 5
Turnkey leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Privy is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Turnkey is the same.
Zengo#5 of 7 · score 71 · 4.0 points behind
Privy leads on
- Cryptographic Audit & SOC 2 Posture8 vs 5
- Published Pricing Actionability8 vs 6
Zengo leads on
- Vendor-Exit Survivability8 vs 7
- Key-Share Custody Disclosure7 vs 6
Largest single reason Privy is ahead: published criteria (+3.6 display points).Scenario cost: Zengo is the same.
Against the leader
81 vs 75 · gap 6.0Why Dfns ranks above Privy
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 6.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisDfnsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.520.0−6.5, 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 · w4079−2.56, worse
Published Pricing Actionability · w2087+0.64, better
Key-Share Custody Disclosure · w1569−1.44, worse
Net7581−6.0
Your scenario
What Privy 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 · Privy at the median
Cheapest priced$0.00 · TurnkeyPrivy 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.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #2 to #4 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 22 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Vendor-Exit Survivabilitystrength 7 · 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 8 · 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 8 · 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 6 · 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 (Privy 6/10): whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Key-Share Custody Disclosure · 15%
- Exit failure (Privy 7/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Vendor-Exit Survivability · 40%
- Key failure (Privy 8/10): 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
- Privy pricing page (privy.io/pricing, fetched 22 October 2026): Developer "Free" for "0-499" MAU, with "50K signatures and $1M transaction volume for free every month". Core "500 – 2,499" MAU, "$299 / M". Scale "2,500 - 9,999 MAU", "$499 / M". FAQ pay-as-you-go above those limits: "a volume PAYG base fee of $2,000; $0.05 per MAU above 10,000 MAUs; and $0.01 per signature above 50,000 signatures." Transaction volume above $1M a month is "billed based on usage" with no published rate. Enterprise: "Custom pricing per transaction or transacting wallet", "Signature‑based pricing as low as $0.001/signature". MAU means "any Privy-authenticated user with at least one active session in the last 30 days." Lowest public tier: 0 USD per month (Developer).Privy — official pricing page ↗ · 22 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDPrivy — 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
- Privy's Acceptable Use Policy (privy.io/acceptable-use-policy, which the Developer Terms of Service bind developers to, read 22 October 2026) prohibits dealings with "Persons located in, resident in, or a citizen of, or products or services originating from jurisdictions that Privy has determined for various reasons, including legal, contractual, and commercial reasons, to be prohibited, including, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria, and the Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions." It also bars persons on a restricted party list of "the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, or United Nations".
- 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
Legal entity on file: Privy, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Privy: 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 75, #3 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:privy_mpc:2026.10.18:58008349b535
Are you Privy? 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.