Provider at a glance
- Category
- Wallets
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- trustwallet.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in August 2026.
Trust Wallet
Self-custody mobile wallet
Wallets
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 11 wallets in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Trust Wallet right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?8/10, the category best
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?8/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?8/10 here; Rabby Wallet scores 9
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?7/10 here; MetaMask 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 crypto wallet shows where it lands for you.
What will Trust Wallet cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Trust Wallet?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read August 2026.
- Incidents4 dated incidents on the verified record; the latest, theft, 24 December 2025.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Trust Wallet
Compare all 4- 1Rabby Wallet1 point above · stronger on key export (9 against 8)81
- 2MetaMaskLevel on score · stronger on account recovery (9 against 7)80
- 4Phantom2 points below · weaker on clear signing (7 against 8)78
For your setup
Find out if Trust Wallet fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Trust Wallet 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 crypto walletNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Trust Wallet 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 (25.0 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
288+7.178.010#5/11Loading evidence…
308+7.685.08#1/11Loading evidence…
248+6.146.08#1/11Loading evidence…
187+4.038.09#7/11Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind MetaMask, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 78–81 and ranks #1–#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 Trust Wallet’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.
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes MetaMask+181#3 → #1
Can I see exactly what I am signing? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes MetaMask+181#3 → #1
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes MetaMask+181#3 → #1
If I lose my device, how do I get back in? 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes MetaMask+181#3 → #2
Can I see exactly what I am signing? 8 → 7 on its ladder · Phantom passes it−178#3 → #4
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? 8 → 6 on its ladder · Phantom passes it−276#3 → #4
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? 8 → 6 on its ladder · Phantom passes it−277#3 → #4
Smallest climb: “Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?” 8 → 9 passes MetaMask, #2.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Can I see exactly what I am signing? — 8/10, the category best
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? — 8/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Read the vendor's own v2.68 post-mortem before you install the browser extension: https://trustwallet.com/blog/company/trust-wallet-browser-extension-v268-incident-community-update. Between 24 and 26 December 2025 an attacker published a backdoored build of the extension straight to the Chrome Web Store using a leaked API key, bypassing Trust Wallet's internal review; the vendor confirms 2,520 wallet addresses drained and approximately $8.5m in assets impacted. Reimbursement is promised but not finished: as of the post's last update on 17 July 2026 it still reads "We are finalizing the reimbursement workflow and ownership verification process", against "over 5,000 claims" for 2,520 verified addresses, and the page's own description calls itself "A work-in-progress update". The extension is also the weaker half of the product on exit: Developer Mode, the only documented private-key export, is "not available on Browser Extension". Separately, no vendor account of the 2022-23 key-generation flaw (CVE-2023-31290, exploited in the wild in December 2022 and March 2023) appears on its security-audit register or its /security page, both re-read on 2026-09-28, despite a published policy that remediated vulnerabilities will be disclosed. If you want Trust Wallet, the mobile app is the surface the evidence supports; treat the extension as the higher-risk, lower-portability half.
Competitive position
Where Trust Wallet 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 / 1114.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#3 / 1118.8 of 30 · best 19.3
Friction#1 / 112.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 113.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 118.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Trust Wallet leads
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?#1 / 11
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?#1 / 11
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.
MetaMask#2 of 11 · score 80 · same score
Trust Wallet leads on
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?8 vs 6
MetaMask leads on
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?9 vs 8
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?9 vs 7
Largest single reason MetaMask is ahead: published criteria (+0.3 display points).Scenario cost: MetaMask has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Rabby Wallet#1 of 11 · score 81 · 1.0 point ahead
Trust Wallet leads on
- What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?8 vs 7
Rabby Wallet leads on
- Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?9 vs 8
- If I lose my device, how do I get back in?8 vs 7
Largest single reason Rabby Wallet is ahead: published criteria (+1.3 display points).Scenario cost: Rabby Wallet has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Phantom#4 of 11 · score 78 · 2.0 points behind
Trust Wallet leads on
- Can I see exactly what I am signing?8 vs 7
Phantom leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason Trust Wallet is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Phantom has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
81 vs 80 · gap 1.0Why Rabby Wallet ranks above Trust Wallet
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.
DimensionThisRabby WalletGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight18.819.3−1.3, 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 criterionThisRabby WalletPoints
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? · w2889−0.90, worse
What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? · w2487+0.77, better
If I lose my device, how do I get back in? · w1878−0.58, worse
Net8081−1.0
Your scenario
Trust Wallet 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 28 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.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 11 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
11 of 11 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 17 August 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 #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 17 August 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere?strength 8 · weight 28Report an error—17 August 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.Can I see exactly what I am signing?strength 8 · weight 30Report an error—17 August 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.What has gone wrong, and did they publish it?strength 8 · weight 24Report an error—17 August 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.If I lose my device, how do I get back in?strength 7 · weight 18Report an error—17 August 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 Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? · 28% (Trust Wallet 8/10)Scored by Can I see exactly what I am signing? · 30% (Trust Wallet 8/10)Scored by What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? · 24% (Trust Wallet 8/10)Scored by If I lose my device, how do I get back in? · 18% (Trust Wallet 7/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- The wallet is free: "Yes. Trust Wallet is free to download and use on iOS, Android and as a browser extension. Network and service fees apply to transactions such as swaps or buying crypto, and they are shown before you confirm." (FAQ answer in the structured data of trustwallet.com, fetched 28 October 2026). No Trust Wallet swap rate is published on any vendor page loaded on 28 October 2026 — the homepage fee sentence recorded in August, which stated separate stablecoin and other-token swap rates, is gone — and the vendor's own statements now conflict. The swap page says "No, Trust Wallet does not charge any additional service fees for swaps. Any swap fees incurred by users for swapping would be network gas fees and third-party provider fees, which are independent of Trust Wallet." (trustwallet.com/swap, fetched 28 October 2026), and the help centre repeats "Trust Wallet does not charge a service fee - fees shown are from the routing protocol and the underlying networks." (support.trustwallet.com/en/articles/717169-how-to-perform-cross-chain-swaps-in-trust-wallet, fetched 28 October 2026). Yet a campaign post dated 27 August 2026 says "When you swap one eligible stablecoin for another on the same chain, the Trust Wallet swap fee is 0%" and "Each of those swaps normally carries a fee." (trustwallet.com/blog/campaigns/swap-selected-stablecoins-with-0-fees-on-trust-wallet), and a second, dated 16 September 2026, offers "0% Trust Wallet swap fees" on eligible staked and wrapped pairs (trustwallet.com/blog/campaigns/wap-staked-assets-with-0-fees-on-trust-wallet). Read the fee line on the in-app quote; the vendor publishes no percentage.Trust Wallet — official page at trustwallet.com ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Prices published in
- USDTrust Wallet — official page at trustwallet.com ↗ · 28 October 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, BNB Smart Chain, Polygon, Avalanche, Tron, Cosmos, Optimism, Base, Sui, Litecoin, XRP, TON
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- No positive country allow-list is published. Re-verified 17 August 2026 on https://
trustwallet .com /terms-of-service, which excludes comprehensively sanctioned jurisdictions character-exact: "you must not be located in, or a resident, national, or entity established under the laws of any jurisdiction that is comprehensively sanctioned by the U.S., including but not limited to Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and the Crimea, Donetsk, and Luhansk regions of Ukraine". The same clause screens against "the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC") Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List and Foreign Sanctions Evaders List and the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security ("BIS") Entity List" (quote re-confirmed on the page 17 August 2026). The wallet itself is self-custodial and unrestricted elsewhere; third-party buy/sell rails inside the app carry their own separate geographic limits.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
Failure record
Incident timeline
Dated events at Trust Wallet 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 Trust Wallet.
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 Trust Wallet: 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.
11 methodology entries
- 17 August 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 80, #3 of 11. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 28 October 2026
2026.10.15Software wallets rank three more wallets and name Ledger Wallet as refused- added Three rows, each graded on all four criteria with a quote and source for every score and placed on the published rungs (research-pending/rereads/2026-09-28-wallet.json, rows read 2026-10-28; every quote re-found verbatim on a fresh fetch or in the page captures kept in research-pending/captures/2026-10-28-wallet/): Sparrow Wallet 6/5/5/9 (BIP-39 with the derivation path shown, every input and output decoded before signing, no documented single-key export, a disclosure policy but no bounty or audit); Electrum 6/5/6/6 (its own published seed format, not BIP-39, with no stated path, private-key export, a pre-signing preview, a 2018 phishing incident it disclosed itself and six dated advisories); OKX Wallet 6/5/6/6 (seed and per-network private-key export with no stated path, a named in-house scanner but no documented simulation, a funded HackerOne bounty and an opened SlowMist wallet audit, no advisory archive). Scores in the order key export, signing visibility, incident record, recovery and exit.
- added Refusal: Ledger Wallet (formerly Ledger Live), a hardware device's companion app; Ledger's own page says "Transactions are approved on a Ledger device, which is bought separately." (ledger.com/ledger-wallet, read 2026-10-28). It points to hardware_wallet.
- changed The custodial scope rule no longer drops OKX Wallet: it now records the 2026-08-16 drop and why it was reversed.
- changed Published wallet order: 11 rows (8 before). The #1 is unchanged (Rabby Wallet, 81). Sparrow Wallet enters at #7 (68), Electrum at #9 (66) and OKX Wallet at #10 (66, the same weighted total as Electrum, 41.9, and the same score on every criterion, so the published tie order decides). Two rows move down at an unchanged score: Rainbow #7 → #8 (67) and Coinbase Wallet #8 → #11 (66). The other six keep their rank and score.
- 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.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt wallet:trust_wallet:2026.10.18:5e5eb5e5d811
Are you Trust Wallet? 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.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of Trust Wallet , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.