Blockdaemon vs Everstake Everstake leads by 7 points.
Everstake scores 7 points above Blockdaemon, led by rate transparency, lock-up disclosure, and voting from custody. Blockdaemon ranks #7 and Everstake #5 of 7 published staking. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
BLBlockdaemon60
vs
EVEverstake67
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #5 of 7
Everstake scores 7 points above Blockdaemon, led by rate transparency, lock-up disclosure, and voting from custody.
BLBlockdaemon #7 of 760
EVEverstake #5 of 767
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termEverstake leads on 3 of 4 published criteria; Blockdaemon on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermEverstakeBlockdaemonWeightPoints
Slashing cover1/102/108.2−2.1for Blockdaemon−1.1 of 32
Rate transparency7/103/105.8+6.0for Everstake+3.1 of 32
Lock-up disclosure7/105/105.3+2.7for Everstake+1.4 of 32
Voting from custody6/105/104.8+1.2for Everstake+0.6 of 32
Net of the terms+7.9
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+7.8
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below6760+7.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Everstake's lead rests on lighter criteria: Blockdaemon is ahead on slashing cover, which carries more weight (34) than any criterion Everstake leads on (24).
EverstakeScore 67Cayman-domiciled non-custodial validator operator claiming 130+ networks and $7B+ staked, which publishes a numeric per-network commission and a 14-day fee-change notice on its own pages without a sales call — while its Terms of Use expressly disclaim all liability for slashing losses and cap total liability at six months of fees, and its pages name no insurer, limit or policy.Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 7/10Watch-out: Read the Terms of Use before you read the Ethereum page. Everstake names no insurer, no limit and no policy anywhere, and the one word that suggested cover is gone: the "Everstake's Insured and Auto-Compounding Staking Solution" line its Ethereum page carried in August was absent on 2026-09-28, when "insur" occurred 0 times on https://everstake.com/staking/protocols/ethereum (the old everstake.one address now 301-redirects there) and its only slashing mention was a generic risk line. Meanwhile https://everstake.com/terms-of-use states in writing: "Everstake shall not be held liable for any losses incurred due to slashing penalties imposed by a Blockchain Network", with all remaining liability capped at "the maximum of the Validator Fees paid by you to us during the six (6) month period preceding the event causing such liability" and any claim waived unless notified in writing within six months. On a 7% commission, that cap is roughly 3.5% of one year's rewards on the affected stake — an amount that would not cover a meaningful slashing event, let alone the stake. Everstake's compensating strength is real and unusually rare: a numeric commission on most networks it documents, a 14-day fee-change notice, and an explicit self-serve-versus-institutional tier split, all published without a sales call. Two caveats on that price transparency, both found on re-verification: the Aleo and Monad pages each print TWO contradictory Everstake fees (Aleo 5% in the hero vs 10% in the staking details; Monad 15% in the hero vs 5% in the staking details), so confirm your network's rate in writing rather than trusting the headline number; and eleven of the 33 protocol URLs in Everstake's own sitemap do not resolve to a protocol page at all, serving the generic staking index instead. Buy it for price transparency and custody-workflow fit, not for loss protection, and if slashing indemnity matters, get it written into the institutional agreement in figures with a named underwriter — because on the public record no such instrument exists.BlockdaemonScore 60Bank-facing non-custodial validator operator (70+ protocols per its homepage counter, though /validators says "50+ protocols"; ISO 27001 / SOC 2 Type II claimed; $110B+ assets secured platform-wide but only "$6+ billion" in staking infrastructure) whose staking pitch rests on a "100% slashing insurance guarantee" that names no underwriter, no limit and no policy anywhere on its own domain — while publishing tiered self-serve per-compute-unit pricing for its API product and no staking commission at all.Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 5/10Watch-out: Read the guarantee's scope before you read its size, and note that Blockdaemon's own pages disagree about it. The headline is an absolute — "backed by 100% slashing insurance guarantee" (/staking) — but the three pages that say anything about what the policy responds to do not agree: /validators scopes it to rewards ("Customers are 100% guaranteed under our slashing insurance policy against rewards missed due to downtime and slashing risks"), while the blog's disclaimer points at principal ("Covers affected staked balances. Additional terms and conditions apply. Inquire here for more information.") and /trust-center says only "Our slashing protection, backed by leading risk advisors and insurers, safeguards clients against potential losses." Not one names a carrier. The single insurance party identified on the entire domain is Marsh, which Blockdaemon itself calls "the world's leading insurance broker and risk advisor" — a broker, not the underwriter that pays; a domain-wide search for Chainproof, Munich Re, Lloyd's, Nexus Mutual, 'underwriter', 'carrier', 'aggregate limit', 'policy limit' and 'certificate of insurance' returns nothing. So settle this in writing before committing: who is the risk carrier, what is the per-incident and aggregate limit, and does cover attach to slashed principal or only to foregone rewards. Second-order: do not read the homepage's "$110B+ Assets Secured" as staked AUM — the staking pages size that business at "$6+ billion worth of staking infrastructure", an 18x difference, because the $110B is the whole platform including custody. Third: the protocol count is inconsistent on Blockdaemon's own site — the homepage counter says 70+ Protocols while /validators says "Supports 50+ protocols" and /protocols links 61 pages.
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactBlockdaemonEverstake
PricingSnapshotBlockdaemon prints no staking commission figure. The only pricing statement is the "Commission Fee" entry in the glossary of its Trust Center (https://www.blockdaemon.com/trust-center, fetched 28 September 2026): "The Validator charges the Delegators who choose to stake their tokens to the protocol via the validator infrastructure. This fee is charged as a % of any rewards distributed by the protocol to that validator." The same entry ends: "Validators set the commission fee %, but are only able to change it in accordance with limitations set by the Network. The Commission Fee is public information published on the Network, accessible by any participants including Delegators." That is a general definition of how proof-of-stake commission works, not Blockdaemon's price; the staking, validators and custodian pages show reward rates and route to "Get in touch", so the rate for a contract is reachable only through sales or by reading each validator's on-chain commission.Everstake's Ethereum page (https://everstake.com/staking/protocols/ethereum; the old everstake.one address now 301-redirects there; fetched 28 September 2026) prints a three-tier table. Easy Stake: "Stake as little as 0.01 ETH with Everstake.", Fee "10%". Institutional: "Stake $500K+ worth of ETH with Everstake.", Fee "Lower". Custom: "Stake 320+ ETH with Everstake and enjoy special conditions.", Fee "Custom", with "Contact Us". The page summary repeats "Everstake offers non-custodial Ethereum staking from as low as 0.01 ETH , with a 10% commission and current APR 3.4 - 10% on staking rewards." So 10% is the published self-serve rate; the institutional rate is printed only as the word "Lower" and the custom rate is set in a sales conversation. The Terms of Use say fees are a percentage of staking rewards and may be changed on 14 days' notice on the website.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
BL
Blockdaemon
60#7 of 7
Pick it when
Pick Blockdaemon if slashing cover matters most — it scores 2/10 to Everstake's 1/10 there (weight 34).
Strength
Unbonding disclosure — 5/10
Tradeoff
Read the guarantee's scope before you read its size, and note that Blockdaemon's own pages disagree about it. The headline is an absolute — "backed by 100% slashing insurance guarantee" (/staking) — but the three pages that say anything about what the policy responds to do not agree: /validators scopes it to rewards ("Customers are 100% guaranteed under our slashing insurance policy against rewards missed due to downtime and slashing risks"), while the blog's disclaimer points at principal ("Covers affected staked balances. Additional terms and conditions apply. Inquire here for more information.") and /trust-center says only "Our slashing protection, backed by leading risk advisors and insurers, safeguards clients against potential losses." Not one names a carrier. The single insurance party identified on the entire domain is Marsh, which Blockdaemon itself calls "the world's leading insurance broker and risk advisor" — a broker, not the underwriter that pays; a domain-wide search for Chainproof, Munich Re, Lloyd's, Nexus Mutual, 'underwriter', 'carrier', 'aggregate limit', 'policy limit' and 'certificate of insurance' returns nothing. So settle this in writing before committing: who is the risk carrier, what is the per-incident and aggregate limit, and does cover attach to slashed principal or only to foregone rewards. Second-order: do not read the homepage's "$110B+ Assets Secured" as staked AUM — the staking pages size that business at "$6+ billion worth of staking infrastructure", an 18x difference, because the $110B is the whole platform including custody. Third: the protocol count is inconsistent on Blockdaemon's own site — the homepage counter says 70+ Protocols while /validators says "Supports 50+ protocols" and /protocols links 61 pages.
EV
Everstake
67#5 of 7
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Everstake if rate transparency matters most — it scores 7/10 to Blockdaemon's 3/10 there (weight 24).
Strength
Unbonding disclosure — 7/10
Tradeoff
Read the Terms of Use before you read the Ethereum page. Everstake names no insurer, no limit and no policy anywhere, and the one word that suggested cover is gone: the "Everstake's Insured and Auto-Compounding Staking Solution" line its Ethereum page carried in August was absent on 2026-09-28, when "insur" occurred 0 times on https://everstake.com/staking/protocols/ethereum (the old everstake.one address now 301-redirects there) and its only slashing mention was a generic risk line. Meanwhile https://everstake.com/terms-of-use states in writing: "Everstake shall not be held liable for any losses incurred due to slashing penalties imposed by a Blockchain Network", with all remaining liability capped at "the maximum of the Validator Fees paid by you to us during the six (6) month period preceding the event causing such liability" and any claim waived unless notified in writing within six months. On a 7% commission, that cap is roughly 3.5% of one year's rewards on the affected stake — an amount that would not cover a meaningful slashing event, let alone the stake. Everstake's compensating strength is real and unusually rare: a numeric commission on most networks it documents, a 14-day fee-change notice, and an explicit self-serve-versus-institutional tier split, all published without a sales call. Two caveats on that price transparency, both found on re-verification: the Aleo and Monad pages each print TWO contradictory Everstake fees (Aleo 5% in the hero vs 10% in the staking details; Monad 15% in the hero vs 5% in the staking details), so confirm your network's rate in writing rather than trusting the headline number; and eleven of the 33 protocol URLs in Everstake's own sitemap do not resolve to a protocol page at all, serving the generic staking index instead. Buy it for price transparency and custody-workflow fit, not for loss protection, and if slashing indemnity matters, get it written into the institutional agreement in figures with a named underwriter — because on the public record no such instrument exists.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
BLBlockdaemon
Choose Blockdaemon if slashing cover matters most
Slashing cover: 2/10 against 1/10 for Everstake (weight 34)
BlockdaemonScore 60Bank-facing non-custodial validator operator (70+ protocols per its homepage counter, though /validators says "50+ protocols"; ISO 27001 / SOC 2 Type II claimed; $110B+ assets secured platform-wide but only "$6+ billion" in staking infrastructure) whose staking pitch rests on a "100% slashing insurance guarantee" that names no underwriter, no limit and no policy anywhere on its own domain — while publishing tiered self-serve per-compute-unit pricing for its API product and no staking commission at all.Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 5/10Watch-out: Read the guarantee's scope before you read its size, and note that Blockdaemon's own pages disagree about it. The headline is an absolute — "backed by 100% slashing insurance guarantee" (/staking) — but the three pages that say anything about what the policy responds to do not agree: /validators scopes it to rewards ("Customers are 100% guaranteed under our slashing insurance policy against rewards missed due to downtime and slashing risks"), while the blog's disclaimer points at principal ("Covers affected staked balances. Additional terms and conditions apply. Inquire here for more information.") and /trust-center says only "Our slashing protection, backed by leading risk advisors and insurers, safeguards clients against potential losses." Not one names a carrier. The single insurance party identified on the entire domain is Marsh, which Blockdaemon itself calls "the world's leading insurance broker and risk advisor" — a broker, not the underwriter that pays; a domain-wide search for Chainproof, Munich Re, Lloyd's, Nexus Mutual, 'underwriter', 'carrier', 'aggregate limit', 'policy limit' and 'certificate of insurance' returns nothing. So settle this in writing before committing: who is the risk carrier, what is the per-incident and aggregate limit, and does cover attach to slashed principal or only to foregone rewards. Second-order: do not read the homepage's "$110B+ Assets Secured" as staked AUM — the staking pages size that business at "$6+ billion worth of staking infrastructure", an 18x difference, because the $110B is the whole platform including custody. Third: the protocol count is inconsistent on Blockdaemon's own site — the homepage counter says 70+ Protocols while /validators says "Supports 50+ protocols" and /protocols links 61 pages.
EVEverstakeLeads
Choose Everstake if rate transparency matters most
Rate transparency: 7/10 against 3/10 for Blockdaemon (weight 24)
Lock-up disclosure: 7/10 against 5/10 for Blockdaemon (weight 22)
Voting from custody: 6/10 against 5/10 for Blockdaemon (weight 20)
EverstakeScore 67Cayman-domiciled non-custodial validator operator claiming 130+ networks and $7B+ staked, which publishes a numeric per-network commission and a 14-day fee-change notice on its own pages without a sales call — while its Terms of Use expressly disclaim all liability for slashing losses and cap total liability at six months of fees, and its pages name no insurer, limit or policy.Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 7/10Watch-out: Read the Terms of Use before you read the Ethereum page. Everstake names no insurer, no limit and no policy anywhere, and the one word that suggested cover is gone: the "Everstake's Insured and Auto-Compounding Staking Solution" line its Ethereum page carried in August was absent on 2026-09-28, when "insur" occurred 0 times on https://everstake.com/staking/protocols/ethereum (the old everstake.one address now 301-redirects there) and its only slashing mention was a generic risk line. Meanwhile https://everstake.com/terms-of-use states in writing: "Everstake shall not be held liable for any losses incurred due to slashing penalties imposed by a Blockchain Network", with all remaining liability capped at "the maximum of the Validator Fees paid by you to us during the six (6) month period preceding the event causing such liability" and any claim waived unless notified in writing within six months. On a 7% commission, that cap is roughly 3.5% of one year's rewards on the affected stake — an amount that would not cover a meaningful slashing event, let alone the stake. Everstake's compensating strength is real and unusually rare: a numeric commission on most networks it documents, a 14-day fee-change notice, and an explicit self-serve-versus-institutional tier split, all published without a sales call. Two caveats on that price transparency, both found on re-verification: the Aleo and Monad pages each print TWO contradictory Everstake fees (Aleo 5% in the hero vs 10% in the staking details; Monad 15% in the hero vs 5% in the staking details), so confirm your network's rate in writing rather than trusting the headline number; and eleven of the 33 protocol URLs in Everstake's own sitemap do not resolve to a protocol page at all, serving the generic staking index instead. Buy it for price transparency and custody-workflow fit, not for loss protection, and if slashing indemnity matters, get it written into the institutional agreement in figures with a named underwriter — because on the public record no such instrument exists.
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Slashing cover
by 1 of 10weight 8.2 of 86Blockdaemon leads
Blockdaemon2/10 out of 10
Everstake1/10 out of 10
Lock-up disclosure
by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Everstake leads
Blockdaemon5/10 out of 10
Everstake7/10 out of 10
Rate transparency
by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Everstake leads
Blockdaemon3/10 out of 10
Everstake7/10 out of 10
Voting from custody
by 1 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Everstake leads
Blockdaemon5/10 out of 10
Everstake6/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
Blockdaemon14/20Everstake14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Blockdaemon8.4/30Everstake11.4/30
Everstake leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Blockdaemon2.7/10Everstake2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Blockdaemon3.2/8Everstake3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Blockdaemon8.3/18Everstake8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Everstake unless the term Blockdaemon leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Blockdaemon if slashing cover matters most — it scores 2/10 to Everstake's 1/10 there (weight 34).
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Scored by Do you keep custody and still get to vote — and who presses the button? · 20% (Blockdaemon 5/10, Everstake 6/10)
Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.
Scored by If a validator you delegated to gets slashed, who actually writes the cheque? · 34% (Blockdaemon 2/10, Everstake 1/10)
Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.
Scored by How long are the assets locked per network, and did they tell you before you signed? · 22% (Blockdaemon 5/10, Everstake 7/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Execution 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: Can you find the rate you would actually pay without booking a sales call? (24%).
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Everstake scores 7 points above Blockdaemon, led by rate transparency, lock-up disclosure, and voting from custody. Published scores, out of 100: Blockdaemon 60 (rank 7 of 7 staking), Everstake 67 (rank 5 of 7).
Reviewed means both products compared here 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.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research