Provider at a glance
- Category
- Smart Accounts & Multisig
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- safe.global
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 78 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe)
Multisig smart account
Smart Accounts & Multisig
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 smart accounts & multisig in the published ranking
78
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes7/10; the category best is 8
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history7/10 here; Squads Protocol scores 9
- Upgrade control and key holders5/10 here; Squads Protocol 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 smart account shows where it lands for you.
What will Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe)
Compare all 4- 1Squads Protocol2 points above · stronger on upgrade control (10 against 5)80
- 3Candide7 points below · stronger on recovery mechanics (8 against 7)71
- 4Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit)12 points below · weaker on recovery mechanics (2 against 7)66
For your setup
Find out if Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 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 smart accountNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 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 (21.4 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
357+7.847.09#2/7Loading evidence…
255+4.004.010#2/7Loading evidence…
207+4.483.08#2/7Loading evidence…
208+5.125.08#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Squads Protocol, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 76–80 and ranks #1–#2
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 Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe)’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.
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Squads Protocol+180#2 → #1
Upgrade control and key holders 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Squads Protocol+280#2 → #1
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Squads Protocol+280#2 → #1
Published cost and chains you can actually reach 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Squads Protocol+280#2 → #1
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history 7 → 3 on its ladder · Candide passes it−469#2 → #3
Upgrade control and key holders 5 → 0 on its ladder · Candide passes it−570#2 → #3
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes 7 → 1 on its ladder · Candide passes it−670#2 → #3
Smallest climb: audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history 7 → 8 passes Squads Protocol, #1.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes — 7/10, category best 8/10
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Upgrade control and key holders — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- "Safe is free" survives only until you transact inside it: an in-app swap of $40k costs 0.70%, and the API your ops tooling depends on starts at €199/month. Separately, Safe's own audits index page (docs.safe.global/advanced/smart-account-audits) lists nothing past v1.4.0 while the repo contains 1.5.0 reports from Ackee and Certora — the customer-facing security page understates the vendor's own work by two versions.
- Safe.global/supported-networks returns HTTP 404. The 512 figure appears at docs.safe.global/advanced/smart-account-supported-networks, where it counts networks — one card per chain (for example "Ethereum Mainnet Chain ID: 1 Smart Accounts v1.5.0 v1.4.1") — and the safe-deployments repository lists the v1.4.1 proxy factory on 409 chain IDs and v1.5.0 on 125. The product a buyer actually uses, Safe{Wallet}, states "28+ Networks supported" (safe.global/networks). Comparing 512 contract deployments against Den's 13 frontend-supported chains is not like-for-like; the wallet comparison is 28+ vs 13, which is not an order of magnitude.
- The sum was disclosed in the vendor's own dated post-mortem. Gnosis states ~$1.5M was extracted with a further ~$300k rendered inaccessible, affecting approximately 5,281 wallets holding $1 or more, first unauthorised transfer detected 06:17 UTC on 1 June 2026. The post-mortem also records that all users were made whole - Gnosis absorbed the losses, with 99% of users reactivated by 6 June 2026. Calling the sum undisclosed while omitting full reimbursement overstates residual harm on both axes.
Competitive position
Where Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 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#2 / 716.1 of 30 · best 16.9
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 Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) leads
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history#2 / 7
- Upgrade control and key holders#2 / 7
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes#2 / 7
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach#1 / 7
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.
Squads Protocol#1 of 7 · score 80 · 2.0 points ahead
Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) leads on
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes7 vs 3
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach8 vs 4
Squads Protocol leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history9 vs 7
- Upgrade control and key holders10 vs 5
Largest single reason Squads Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Squads Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Candide#3 of 7 · score 71 · 7.0 points behind
Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history7 vs 5
- Upgrade control and key holders5 vs 4
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach8 vs 6
Candide leads on
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes8 vs 7
Largest single reason Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) is ahead: published criteria (+7.3 display points).Scenario cost: Candide has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit)#4 of 7 · score 66 · 12.0 points behind
Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) leads on
- Upgrade control and key holders5 vs 3
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes7 vs 2
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach8 vs 6
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) is ahead: published criteria (+12.0 display points).Scenario cost: Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 78 · gap 2.0Why Squads Protocol ranks above Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe)
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 2.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSquads ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.116.9−2.1, 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 criterionThisSquads ProtocolPoints
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · w3579−2.24, worse
Upgrade control and key holders · w25510−4.00, worse
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · w2073+2.56, better
Published cost and chains you can actually reach · w2084+2.56, better
Net7880−2.0
Your scenario
Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 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 14 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 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 14 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 #2 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 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit historystrength 7 · weight 35Report an error—14 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.Upgrade control and key holdersstrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—14 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.Recovery paths and their documented failure modesstrength 7 · weight 20Report an error—14 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.Published cost and chains you can actually reachstrength 8 · weight 20Report an error—14 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 (Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 7/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · 35%
- Control failure (Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 5/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Upgrade control and key holders · 25%
- Key failure (Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) 7/10): your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.Scored by Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · 20%
Not assessed by this ranking: Exit 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 cost and chains you can actually reach (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Safe{Wallet} carries no subscription (homepage: "0 AUM fees"). Native swaps carry a widget fee of 0.70% (up to $50,000), 0.35% (>$50,000–$100,000), 0.20% (>$100,000–$1,000,000) and 0.1% (>$1,000,000); stablecoin-only pairs (only on ETH, ARB, Gnosis, Base) pay 0.15% / 0.10% / 0.07% / 0.05%. "This fee is paid to CoW Swap or LiFi, with a portion distributed to the Safe Foundation to fund community initiatives." Native bridging via the LI.FI widget carries 0.35% / 0.20% / 0.10% (stablecoin-only pairs 0.10% / 0.07% / 0.05%). The Safe API is free only at Builder (50K calls, 5 RPS); Growth is €199/month (1M calls, 15 RPS) and Scale from €499/month (3M calls, 50 RPS).Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDSafe (formerly Gnosis Safe) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 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
- Self-custodial and available globally; Safe{Wallet} Terms (Oct 2025) exclude persons in jurisdictions subject to EU or US economic sanctions without naming countries.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe): 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
- 14 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 78, #2 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 smart_accounts:safe_smart_accounts:2026.10.18:eee0f90c8ada
Are you Safe (formerly Gnosis Safe)? 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.