Provider at a glance
- Category
- Hardware Wallets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- trezor.io
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in October 2026.
Trezor
Hardware wallet with open firmware
Hardware Wallets
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 23 hardware wallets in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
- $59 price, once
Is Trezor right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Secure element10/10, the category best
- Rebuildable firmware10/10, the category best
- Genuine check7/10, the category best
- Maker independence10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Checkable keys7/10 here; BitBox02 Nova scores 10
- Fund-loss record7/10 here; BitBox02 scores 10
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 Trezor cost you?
$59 price, once
- Device price, once
- $59
$15 below the median of 18 priced hardware wallets.
How this is calculatedHow safe is Trezor?
- Evidence: verified6 of 6 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read October 2026.
- Incidents4 dated incidents on the verified record; the latest, vulnerability, 10 January 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no authorisation required. The register record
Alternatives to Trezor
Compare all 4- 1BitBox02 Nova1 point above · stronger on checkable keys (10 against 7)81€175
- 3BitBox024 points below · stronger on checkable keys (10 against 7)76€149
- 4Blockstream Jade Core9 points below · stronger on checkable keys (10 against 7)71$99
For your setup
Find out if Trezor fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Trezor 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 Trezor 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 (28.6 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 4 of 6.
6 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
2710+8.644.010#1/23Loading evidence…
2710+8.647.010#1/23Loading evidence…
127+2.697.07#1/23Loading evidence…
127+2.690.010#5/23Loading evidence…
1110+3.528.010#1/23Loading evidence…
117+2.468.010#13/23Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind BitBox02 Nova, #1
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 6 criterion scores, the re-run scores 78–81 and stays #2
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 Trezor’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.
Proof the device is genuine and unmodified 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes BitBox02 Nova+281#2 → #1
Key creation and signing you can check 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes BitBox02 Nova+281#2 → #1
Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes BitBox02 Nova+281#2 → #1
Secure element you can look up 10 → 7 on its ladder · BitBox02 passes it−375#2 → #3
Firmware anyone can rebuild and match 10 → 7 on its ladder · BitBox02 passes it−375#2 → #3
Proof the device is genuine and unmodified 7 → 1 on its ladder · BitBox02 passes it−676#2 → #3
Smallest climb: proof the device is genuine and unmodified 7 → 9 passes BitBox02 Nova, #1.
Strengths
4 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Secure element you can look up — 10/10, the category best
- Firmware anyone can rebuild and match — 10/10, the category best
- Proof the device is genuine and unmodified — 7/10, the category best
- Sign and recover without the maker — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Key creation and signing you can check — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
Record watch-outs
- Graded on the Safe 3, which first shipped in November 2023, so its record counts three years, not the brand's twelve
- Its chip's EAL6+ certificate runs to March 2027; the secure-element score falls to 9 about 180 days after that unless it is renewed
- A 2022 breach at its newsletter vendor (Mailchimp) fuelled phishing: a data leak, not a device compromise
Competitive position
Where Trezor 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#2 / 2321.5 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 Trezor leads
- Secure element you can look up#1 / 23
- Firmware anyone can rebuild and match#1 / 23
- Proof the device is genuine and unmodified#1 / 23
- Key creation and signing you can check#5 / 23
- Sign and recover without the maker#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.
BitBox02 Nova#1 of 23 · score 81 · 1.0 point ahead
Trezor leads on
- Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss7 vs 5
BitBox02 Nova leads on
- Key creation and signing you can check10 vs 7
Largest single reason BitBox02 Nova is ahead: published criteria (+0.8 display points).Scenario cost: Trezor has no verified pricing for this scenario.
BitBox02#3 of 23 · score 76 · 4.0 points behind
Trezor leads on
- Secure element you can look up10 vs 5
BitBox02 leads on
- Key creation and signing you can check10 vs 7
- Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss10 vs 7
Largest single reason Trezor is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Trezor has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Blockstream Jade Core#4 of 23 · score 71 · 9.0 points behind
Trezor leads on
- Secure element you can look up10 vs 4
- Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss7 vs 5
Blockstream Jade Core leads on
- Key creation and signing you can check10 vs 7
Largest single reason Trezor is ahead: published criteria (+9.4 display points).Scenario cost: Blockstream Jade Core is +$40 against Trezor.
Against the leader
81 vs 80 · gap 1.0Why BitBox02 Nova ranks above Trezor
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 1.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisBitBox02 NovaGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight21.521.8−0.8, 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
Key creation and signing you can check · w12710−1.15, worse
Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss · w1175+0.70, better
Net8081−1.0
Your scenario
What Trezor 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$59
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 1 October 2026.
price, onceCost is stated as price, once in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
$59
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median$7418 of 23 rows priced · Trezor −$15 vs median
Cheapest priced$49 · SecuXTrezor costs +$10 more · availability not applied — set your country to filterCompare with SecuX
5 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 #2 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 10 · 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 10 · 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 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.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 7 · 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% (Trezor 10/10)Scored by Firmware anyone can rebuild and match · 27% (Trezor 10/10)Scored by Proof the device is genuine and unmodified · 12% (Trezor 7/10)Scored by Key creation and signing you can check · 12% (Trezor 7/10)Scored by Sign and recover without the maker · 11% (Trezor 10/10)Scored by Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss · 11% (Trezor 7/10)
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
- Trezor Safe 3: the Product JSON-LD on https://
trezor .io /trezor-safe- 3 reads "priceCurrency":"USD","price":59, read 1 October 2026 and again 28 October 2026; the Bitcoin-only edition is the same price. The same page shows a visitor in Germany "Buy for EUR 59" (read 28 October 2026).Trezor — official page at trezor.io ↗ · 1 October 2026 - Prices published in
- USDTrezor — official page at trezor.io ↗ · 1 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- unregulated
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Bitcoin, 1000s of coins & tokens
- 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 Trezor 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 Trezor.
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 Trezor: 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 80, #2 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:trezor:2026.10.18:fdc5c084f53c
Are you Trezor? 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.