Provider at a glance
- Category
- Hardware Wallets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- satochip.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 57 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Satochip
NFC smart card wallet
Hardware Wallets
#16 Overall
Ranked #16 of 23 hardware wallets in the published ranking
57
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- €25 price, once
Is Satochip right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Genuine check7/10, the category best
- Maker independence10/10, the category best
- Fund-loss record10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Secure element3/10 here; the category best is 10
- Rebuildable firmware5/10 here; KeepKey scores 10
- Checkable keys0/10 here; KeepKey scores 4
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Europe, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best hardware wallet shows where it lands for you.
What will Satochip cost you?
€25 price, once
- Device price, once
- €25
€104 below the median of 5 priced hardware wallets.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Satochip?
- Evidence: verified6 of 6 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- IncidentsNo dated entry in the records read on 1 October 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Satochip
Compare all 4- 14KeepKey5 points above · stronger on rebuildable firmware (10 against 5)62$60
- 15Cypherock X13 points above · stronger on rebuildable firmware (10 against 5)60$99
- 17GridPlus Lattice15 points below · weaker on maker independence (6 against 10)52$397
For your setup
Find out if Satochip fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Satochip 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 hardware walletNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Satochip ranks #16
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (16.6 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 3 of 6.
6 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
273+2.594.010#14/23Loading evidence…
275+4.327.010#13/23Loading evidence…
127+2.697.07#1/23Loading evidence…
120+0.000.010#10/23Loading evidence…
1110+3.528.010#1/23Loading evidence…
1110+3.528.010#1/23Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Cypherock X1, #15
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 6 criterion scores, the re-run scores 55–58 and stays #16
Evidence6 of 6 scored6 quoted, 6 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Satochip’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.
Secure element you can look up 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Cypherock X1+260#16 → #15
Firmware anyone can rebuild and match 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Cypherock X1+260#16 → #15
Key creation and signing you can check 0 → 4 on its ladder · passes Cypherock X1+460#16 → #15
Secure element you can look up 3 → 0 on its ladder · GridPlus Lattice1 passes it−352#16 → #17
Firmware anyone can rebuild and match 5 → 2 on its ladder · GridPlus Lattice1 passes it−352#16 → #17
Proof the device is genuine and unmodified 7 → 1 on its ladder · GridPlus Lattice1 passes it−652#16 → #17
Smallest climb: secure element you can look up 3 → 5 passes Cypherock X1, #15.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Proof the device is genuine and unmodified — 7/10, the category best
- Sign and recover without the maker — 10/10, the category best
- Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Secure element you can look up — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Firmware anyone can rebuild and match — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Key creation and signing you can check — 0/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- No screen: you approve what the phone or computer shows, so a compromised host can mislead you
- Claims an EAL6 certified chip but names no part, so no certificate can be matched
- The card cannot make a seed: every setup imports a phrase made off the card, by an app or by you
Competitive position
Where Satochip 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 / 2314.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#16 / 2312.5 of 30 · best 21.8
Friction#1 / 232.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 233.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 235.5 of 18 · constant here
Where Satochip leads
- Proof the device is genuine and unmodified#1 / 23
- Sign and recover without the maker#1 / 23
- Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss#1 / 23
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.
Cypherock X1#15 of 23 · score 60 · 3.0 points ahead
Satochip leads on
- Sign and recover without the maker10 vs 4
- Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss10 vs 8
Cypherock X1 leads on
- Firmware anyone can rebuild and match10 vs 5
Largest single reason Cypherock X1 is ahead: published criteria (+2.9 display points).Scenario cost: Satochip has no verified pricing for this scenario.
GridPlus Lattice1#17 of 23 · score 52 · 5.0 points behind
Satochip leads on
- Firmware anyone can rebuild and match5 vs 4
- Sign and recover without the maker10 vs 6
GridPlus Lattice1 leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Satochip is ahead: published criteria (+4.4 display points).Scenario cost: Satochip has no verified pricing for this scenario.
KeepKey#14 of 23 · score 62 · 5.0 points ahead
Satochip leads on
- Secure element you can look up3 vs 0
- Proof the device is genuine and unmodified7 vs 5
KeepKey leads on
- Firmware anyone can rebuild and match10 vs 5
- Key creation and signing you can check4 vs 0
Largest single reason KeepKey is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Satochip has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 57 · gap 24.0Why BitBox02 Nova ranks above Satochip
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.
DimensionThisBitBox02 NovaGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.521.8−24.2, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here5.55.5same
Published criterionThisBitBox02 NovaPoints
Secure element you can look up · w27310−6.05, worse
Firmware anyone can rebuild and match · w27510−4.32, worse
Key creation and signing you can check · w12010−3.84, worse
Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss · w11105+1.76, better
Net5781−24.0
Your scenario
What Satochip costs on your scenario
The published device price, paid once. Excludes shipping, duty and any replacement. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
price, once · default scenario — set your own
Device price, once · published rate€25
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 1 October 2026.
price, onceCost is stated as price, once in EUR; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
€25
Under the default inputs · EURCategory median€1295 of 23 rows priced · Satochip −€104 vs median
Cheapest priced€25 · SatochipSatochip is the cheapest priced row for this scenario · availability not applied — set your country to filter
18 of 23 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 1 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.
6 of 6 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified6 of 6 criteria reconstruct from receipts
6 of 6 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…6 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
6/6 criteria scored, with 6 dated sources quoted.RobustnessHoldsrank #16 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 1 October 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Secure element you can look upstrength 3 · weight 27Report an error—1 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.Firmware anyone can rebuild and matchstrength 5 · weight 27Report an error—1 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.Proof the device is genuine and unmodifiedstrength 7 · weight 12Report an error—1 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 creation and signing you can checkstrength 0 · weight 12Report an error—1 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.Sign and recover without the makerstrength 10 · weight 11Report an error—1 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.Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund lossstrength 10 · weight 11Report an error—1 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
- Key failure: your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.Scored by Secure element you can look up · 27% (Satochip 3/10)Scored by Firmware anyone can rebuild and match · 27% (Satochip 5/10)Scored by Proof the device is genuine and unmodified · 12% (Satochip 7/10)Scored by Key creation and signing you can check · 12% (Satochip 0/10)Scored by Sign and recover without the maker · 11% (Satochip 10/10)Scored by Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss · 11% (Satochip 10/10)
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored, except Information failure, which the provider pages show as a fact.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Satochip at €25.00 including VAT on https://
satochip .io /product /satochip /, read 1 October 2026; the store prices in euros only and publishes no US dollar list price.Satochip — official page at satochip.io ↗ · 1 October 2026 - Prices published in
- EURSatochip — official page at satochip.io ↗ · 1 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- unregulated
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Bitcoin, Ethereum and EVM networks, Litecoin
- Markets served
- us, europe, 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.
Failure record
Incident timeline
Dated events at Satochip 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 Satochip.
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 Satochip: 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.
13 methodology entries
- 1 October 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 57, #16 of 23. 6 of 6 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.
- 2 October 2026
2026.10.4Hardware wallets rank a maker's other models that grade differently- added Four rows, each graded on all six criteria with a quote and source for every score (research-pending/rereads/2026-10-01-hardware_wallet.json, rows read 2026-10-02; a receipt-reading model run and a refute-by-default one per row, and every quote re-found verbatim on a fresh fetch: 83 of 84 by the mechanical checker, the 84th, a raw TOML file it cannot classify, by hand): Blockstream Jade Core 4/10/7/10/10/5 ($99; a per-unit genuine check the Jade Classic does not sell, on sale only since 2026; the Jade Plus inside it), Ledger Nano X 9/4/7/0/6/10 ($99; an EAL5+ chip against the Nano S Plus's EAL6+, on sale since 2019), CoolWallet Pro 3/4/2/0/6/9 ($149; independent wallets sign with it, on sale since 2021), SafePal X1 3/3/2/0/4/7 ($69.99; no documented boot-time check, on sale since 2023; the S1 Pro inside it). Scores in the order secure element, rebuildable firmware, genuine check, key integrity, independence from the maker, fund-loss record.
- added Refusals: the SecuX Shield BIO joins the SecuX Neo refusal while SecuX does not say which published firmware it runs (it differs from the W10 on independence and on its record either way, so it cannot share that row); Coinkite SATSCHIP (a provenance key for physical art whose key cannot be backed up), Satochip Satodime (a bearer card whose key is exported to spend), Satochip Seedkeeper (a secret store that exports, not a signer) and Keystone ForgeBox (a developer kit that runs its owner's firmware) are named with the reason, each quote re-read on 2026-10-02.
- changed Fund-loss record ladder, owner 2026-10-02: a firmware edition sold for the same hardware (universal, multi, Bitcoin-only) is that model, and so is a connector or packaging revision sold under the same model's listing. No score moves; it states what the sweep applied.
- changed Published hardware_wallet order: 23 rows (19 before). The #1 is unchanged (BitBox02 Nova, 81). Blockstream Jade Core enters at #4 (71); Ledger Nano X at #13 (63, the same printed score as the Nano S Plus row, after it on the weighted total, 40.1 against 40.2: one point less on the 27-weight secure element outweighs two more on the 11-weight record); CoolWallet Pro at #18 (48, the same printed score as SafePal S1, ahead on the weighted total, 34.5 against 34.4); SafePal X1 at #22 (44, the same printed score as CoolWallet Go, after it on the weighted total, 32.8 against 32.9). Every other row keeps its score and moves down by the rows entered above it.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt hardware_wallet:satochip:2026.10.18:fdc5c084f53c
Are you Satochip? 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.