Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquid Staking
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- stakewise.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 70 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
StakeWise
Ethereum liquid staking with vaults
Liquid Staking
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 11 liquid staking in the published ranking
70
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $80 commission/yr
Is StakeWise right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Operator set9/10; the category best is 10
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Unstake path6/10 here; the category best is 8
- Peg stability4/10 here; Rocket Pool scores 5
- Commission5/10 here; Coinbase Staking scores 6
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 liquid staking protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will StakeWise cost you?
$80 commission/yr
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
- Commission on rewards
- 5%
$80 below the median of 10 priced liquid staking.
How this is calculatedHow safe is StakeWise?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to StakeWise
Compare all 4- 5Rocket Pool3 points below · stronger on peg stability (5 against 4)67$224
- 6Coinbase Staking5 points below · stronger on peg stability (5 against 4)65$160
- 7Stride5 points below · stronger on commission (6 against 5)65$160
For your setup
Find out if StakeWise fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where StakeWise 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 liquid staking protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why StakeWise ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (19.4 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
286+5.386.08#6/11Loading evidence…
264+3.335.09#7/11Loading evidence…
269+7.494.010#2/11Loading evidence…
205+3.206.010#10/11Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−9behind Lido, #3
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–72 and stays #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 StakeWise’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.
Peg resilience & exit depth 4 → 10 on its ladder · passes Lido+680#4 → #3
Redemption mechanics 6 → 4 on its ladder · Rocket Pool passes it−267#4 → #5
Peg resilience & exit depth 4 → 2 on its ladder · Rocket Pool passes it−267#4 → #5
Operator decentralisation 9 → 7 on its ladder · Rocket Pool passes it−267#4 → #5
Smallest climb: peg resilience & exit depth 4 → 10 passes Lido, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Operator decentralisation — 9/10, category best 10/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Redemption mechanics — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Peg resilience & exit depth — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Commission take-rate — 5/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- V3 vault model is more configuration-heavy than a single-pool LST
- osETH liquidity less broad than stETH
Competitive position
Where StakeWise 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 / 1120.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#4 / 1114.5 of 30 · best 19.5
Friction#2 / 112.7 of 10 · best 7.3
Trust record#1 / 113.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#4 / 116.9 of 18 · best 9.7
Where StakeWise leads
- Operator decentralisation#2 / 11
Where it trails
- Commission take-rate#10 / 11
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.
Rocket Pool#5 of 11 · score 67 · 3.0 points behind
StakeWise leads on
- Redemption mechanics6 vs 4
- Commission take-rate5 vs 3
Rocket Pool leads on
- Peg resilience & exit depth5 vs 4
- Operator decentralisation10 vs 9
Largest single reason StakeWise is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Rocket Pool is +$144 against StakeWise.
Coinbase Staking#6 of 11 · score 65 · 5.0 points behind
StakeWise leads on
- Operator decentralisation9 vs 2
Coinbase Staking leads on
- Peg resilience & exit depth5 vs 4
- Commission take-rate6 vs 5
Largest single reason StakeWise is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: Coinbase Staking is +$80 against StakeWise.
Stride#7 of 11 · score 65 · 5.0 points behind
StakeWise leads on
- Redemption mechanics6 vs 5
- Peg resilience & exit depth4 vs 3
- Operator decentralisation9 vs 7
Stride leads on
- Commission take-rate6 vs 5
Largest single reason StakeWise is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Stride is +$80 against StakeWise.
Against the leader
83 vs 70 · gap 13.0Why Jito ranks above StakeWise
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 13.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisJitoGap share
Availability · 23% weight20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight14.519.5−13.0, worse
Friction · 12% weight2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight6.96.9same
Published criterionThisJitoPoints
Redemption mechanics · w2868−1.79, worse
Peg resilience & exit depth · w2648−3.33, worse
Operator decentralisation · w2697+1.66, better
Commission take-rate · w20510−3.20, worse
Net7083−13.0
Your scenario
What StakeWise costs on your scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Commission on rewards · published rate5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 30 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$80
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$16010 of 11 rows priced · StakeWise −$80 vs median
Cheapest priced$64 · JitoStakeWise costs +$16 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with Jito
1 of 11 quote a zero fee that leaves costs out, so they are absent from the median and the cheapest row, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
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.RobustnessHoldsrank #4 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.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Redemption mechanicsstrength 6 · weight 28Report an error——
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.Peg resilience & exit depthstrength 4 · weight 26Report an error——
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.Operator decentralisationstrength 9 · weight 26Report an error——
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.Commission take-ratestrength 5 · weight 20Report an error——
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
- Verification failure (StakeWise 9/10): an invalid state or transfer is accepted.Scored by Operator decentralisation · 26%
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Redemption mechanics · 28% (StakeWise 6/10)Scored by Peg resilience & exit depth · 26% (StakeWise 4/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Control failure, Insolvency failure, Regulatory failure, Execution 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: Commission take-rate (20%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- StakeWise Fees page (docs.stakewise.io, fetched 30 September 2026) describes two layers. The Vault fee "is a percentage fee charged by Vault operators on staking rewards" and "can range from 0% to 100%" (the page's examples: "5%, 4.2%, 100%, 3.5%"); "The StakeWise DAO does not charge Vault creators or stakers for using Vaults." Holders of osETH pay a second fee on top: "StakeWise DAO charges a 5% fee on the rewards accumulated by osETH". The page's own worked example: a 5% Vault fee plus the osETH fee turns 0.4 ETH of rewards into "0.361 ETH". Unstaking carries no fee, but "Assets cannot be claimed until 15 hours after you entered the queue" (Risks page). Ethereum gas applies.StakeWise — official page at docs.stakewise.io ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDStakeWise — official page at docs.stakewise.io ↗ · 30 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- minimal
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum
- Markets served
- us, europe, global
- Primary markets
- Global Ethereum stakers, Permissionless validator operators
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Vault selection determines fee, operator, and risk profile; osETH minting capacity tied to selected vault collateral.
- Availability note
- Protocol access is globally available onchain.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with StakeWise: 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
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 70, #4 of 11. 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 liquid_staking:stakewise:2026.10.18:519206225f87
Are you StakeWise? 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.