Provider at a glance
- Category
- Smart Accounts & Multisig
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- zodiac.eco
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 57 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)
Permission and delay modules for Safe
Smart Accounts & Multisig
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 smart accounts & multisig in the published ranking
57
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history2/10 here; Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) scores 7
- Upgrade control and key holders2/10 here; Den scores 4
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes6/10 here; the category best is 8
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach5/10 here; Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) scores 6
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 Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)
Compare all 4- 4Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit)9 points above · stronger on contract security record (7 against 2)66
- 5Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)5 points above · stronger on contract security record (7 against 2)62
- 6Den5 points above · stronger on contract security record (6 against 2)62
For your setup
Find out if Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) 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 Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (10.9 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
352+2.247.09#7/7Loading evidence…
252+1.604.010#7/7Loading evidence…
206+3.843.08#3/7Loading evidence…
205+3.205.08#4/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind Den, #6
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 55–59 and stays #7
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 Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)’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 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes Den+364#7 → #5
Upgrade control and key holders 2 → 5 on its ladder · passes Den+362#7 → #6
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes 6 → 10 on its ladder · passes Den+462#7 → #6
Published cost and chains you can actually reach 5 → 9 on its ladder · passes Den+462#7 → #6
Smallest climb: audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history 2 → 5 passes Den, #6.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Upgrade control and key holders — 2/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach — 5/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- You are paying a subscription, metered by the size of your treasury, for modules whose two most widely deployed versions were disclosed vulnerable in June 2026. Note also that the free open-source Zodiac modules and the paid "Zodiac OS" product are different things — the contracts remain free onchain; the $250/month buys the hosted interface around them.
- The live site does not brand the paid product Zodiac OS. zodiac.eco presents the product simply as Zodiac, with the footer reading (c) 2026 Zodiac Labs GmbH and the SDK branded @zodiac/sdk. The underlying substance - free open-source modules onchain versus a paid hosted interface - is broadly right, but the product name Zodiac OS is not attested on the current site and the provider id zodiac_os inherits that error.
Competitive position
Where Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) 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#7 / 78.2 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 Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) leads
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes#3 / 7
Where it trails
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history#7 / 7
- Upgrade control and key holders#7 / 7
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.
Den#6 of 7 · score 62 · 5.0 points ahead
Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) leads on
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes6 vs 2
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach5 vs 3
Den leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history6 vs 2
- Upgrade control and key holders4 vs 2
Largest single reason Den is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Den has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Biconomy (Nexus / MEE)#5 of 7 · score 62 · 5.0 points ahead
Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) leads on
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes6 vs 2
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach5 vs 3
Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history7 vs 2
- Upgrade control and key holders3 vs 2
Largest single reason Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) is ahead: published criteria (+4.9 display points).Scenario cost: Biconomy (Nexus / MEE) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit)#4 of 7 · score 66 · 9.0 points ahead
Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) leads on
- Recovery paths and their documented failure modes6 vs 2
Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) leads on
- Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history7 vs 2
- Upgrade control and key holders3 vs 2
- Published cost and chains you can actually reach6 vs 5
Largest single reason Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) is ahead: published criteria (+8.6 display points).Scenario cost: Alchemy Smart Wallets (Account Kit) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 57 · gap 23.0Why Squads Protocol ranks above Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)
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 23.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSquads ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.216.9−22.6, 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 · w3529−7.84, worse
Upgrade control and key holders · w25210−6.40, worse
Recovery paths and their documented failure modes · w2063+1.92, better
Published cost and chains you can actually reach · w2054+0.64, better
Net5780−23.0
Your scenario
Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #7 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 14 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit historystrength 2 · 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 2 · 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 6 · 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 5 · 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 (Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) 2/10): the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by Audit depth of the deployed version + real exploit history · 35%
- Control failure (Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) 2/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Upgrade control and key holders · 25%
- Key failure (Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) 6/10): 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
- Free: "$0 forever" — up to $1M assets under management and $100k/month transaction volume (3 seats, 3 vaults, 3 policies). Starter: "$250 per month" — up to $4M AUM and $400k/month volume (5 seats, 10 vaults, 10 policies). Enterprise: "Custom". "No transaction fees, no cut of the value you move — just a flat subscription."Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) — official pricing page ↗ · 14 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDZodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs) — 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
- Available globally; Zodiac Labs GmbH Terms (updated 30 June 2026, German law) contain no geographic restriction beyond lawful use.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs): 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 57, #7 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:zodiac_os:2026.10.18:eee0f90c8ada
Are you Zodiac (Gnosis Guild / Zodiac Labs)? 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.