Figment scores 5 points above Everstake, led by slashing cover. Figment ranks #4 and Everstake #5 of 7 published staking. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
FIFigment72
vs
EVEverstake67
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #5 of 7
Figment scores 5 points above Everstake, led by slashing cover.
FIFigment #4 of 772
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 termFigment leads on 1 of 4 published criteria; Everstake on 3. The terms sum to the gap.
TermFigmentEverstakeWeightPoints
Slashing cover5/101/108.2+8.5for Figment+4.4 of 32
Rate transparency6/107/105.8−1.5for Everstake−0.8 of 32
Lock-up disclosure6/107/105.3−1.4for Everstake−0.7 of 32
Voting from custody5/106/104.8−1.2for Everstake−0.6 of 32
Net of the terms+4.4
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+4.4
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7267+5.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
FigmentScore 72Institutional non-custodial validator operator publishing a 25-network catalog table (2026-09-28 count) with per-network unbonding and 28 named custody integrations, whose only public price is an Ethereum self-serve app fee stated as "10% of total rewards" in an answer that first scopes it to execution-layer rewards, while the institutional contract rate, and the size of its slashing coverage, are both set behind "Meet With Us".Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 6/10Watch-out: The number you would actually pay is not on this site, and the one number that is on it does not say what it is charged on. Figment's only stated fee is the Ethereum self-serve app's, on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ : you "only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards", and then "Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." — so the page does not say whether the 10% is taken on execution-layer or on total rewards. The second, conflicting rate (30% of execution layer rewards) that https://www.figment.io/staking/protocols/ethereum/ printed in August was gone from that page on 2026-09-28. The 10% describes the ETH self-serve app, not an institutional rate, and the institutional pages print no fee at all. Do not mistake the "Avg. Public Node Fee" column on the protocols catalog for Figment's price — it is undefined on the page, and its Ethereum cell, "Varies" in August, read "10%" on 2026-09-28, matching the app fee without saying it is one, so treat it as an undefined benchmark, not a quote. The coverage that reads like indemnity is unquantified the same way: the only insurer Figment names, Nexus Mutual, is an opt-in purchase limited to Ethereum double-sign; the "multi-tiered coverage, including insurance and Figment's balance sheet" on the solutions pages carries no limit and no basis; and the one thing Figment says it "contractually commit[s]" to is slashing ALERTING, not reimbursement. Before committing, make the contract state (a) your actual commission and its base per network, and (b) the coverage limit in figures and who underwrites it — because on the public record neither exists.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.
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactFigmentEverstake
PricingSnapshotFigment app FAQ "How much does it cost to stake through the Figment app?" on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ (fetched 28 September 2026): "You keep all of the consensus layer rewards earned by your validator when staking through the Figment app and only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards. This fee is collected on-chain automatically through a smart contract. Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." That is the Ethereum self-serve app rate; the sentence scopes the fee to execution-layer rewards and then states it as a share of total rewards, and the page does not say which reading governs. It is not an institutional contract rate: the custodian and asset-manager solution pages print no fee and route to "Meet With Us", and the Staking Terms of Use (Last Updated August 21st, 2026) say only that service fees "are publicly available on the relevant block explorer for each Supported Blockchain and are subject to change at any time for any reason."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?
FI
Figment
72#4 of 7
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Figment if slashing cover matters most — it scores 5/10 to Everstake's 1/10 there (weight 34).
Strength
Unbonding disclosure — 6/10
Tradeoff
The number you would actually pay is not on this site, and the one number that is on it does not say what it is charged on. Figment's only stated fee is the Ethereum self-serve app's, on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ : you "only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards", and then "Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." — so the page does not say whether the 10% is taken on execution-layer or on total rewards. The second, conflicting rate (30% of execution layer rewards) that https://www.figment.io/staking/protocols/ethereum/ printed in August was gone from that page on 2026-09-28. The 10% describes the ETH self-serve app, not an institutional rate, and the institutional pages print no fee at all. Do not mistake the "Avg. Public Node Fee" column on the protocols catalog for Figment's price — it is undefined on the page, and its Ethereum cell, "Varies" in August, read "10%" on 2026-09-28, matching the app fee without saying it is one, so treat it as an undefined benchmark, not a quote. The coverage that reads like indemnity is unquantified the same way: the only insurer Figment names, Nexus Mutual, is an opt-in purchase limited to Ethereum double-sign; the "multi-tiered coverage, including insurance and Figment's balance sheet" on the solutions pages carries no limit and no basis; and the one thing Figment says it "contractually commit[s]" to is slashing ALERTING, not reimbursement. Before committing, make the contract state (a) your actual commission and its base per network, and (b) the coverage limit in figures and who underwrites it — because on the public record neither exists.
EV
Everstake
67#5 of 7
Pick it when
Pick Everstake if rate transparency matters most — it scores 7/10 to Figment's 6/10 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?
FIFigmentLeads
Choose Figment if slashing cover matters most
Slashing cover: 5/10 against 1/10 for Everstake (weight 34)
FigmentScore 72Institutional non-custodial validator operator publishing a 25-network catalog table (2026-09-28 count) with per-network unbonding and 28 named custody integrations, whose only public price is an Ethereum self-serve app fee stated as "10% of total rewards" in an answer that first scopes it to execution-layer rewards, while the institutional contract rate, and the size of its slashing coverage, are both set behind "Meet With Us".Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 6/10Watch-out: The number you would actually pay is not on this site, and the one number that is on it does not say what it is charged on. Figment's only stated fee is the Ethereum self-serve app's, on https://www.figment.io/products/staking-app/ : you "only pay a service fee when your validator is selected to propose a block and earns execution layer rewards", and then "Currently, the service fee is 10% of total rewards, but is subject to change." — so the page does not say whether the 10% is taken on execution-layer or on total rewards. The second, conflicting rate (30% of execution layer rewards) that https://www.figment.io/staking/protocols/ethereum/ printed in August was gone from that page on 2026-09-28. The 10% describes the ETH self-serve app, not an institutional rate, and the institutional pages print no fee at all. Do not mistake the "Avg. Public Node Fee" column on the protocols catalog for Figment's price — it is undefined on the page, and its Ethereum cell, "Varies" in August, read "10%" on 2026-09-28, matching the app fee without saying it is one, so treat it as an undefined benchmark, not a quote. The coverage that reads like indemnity is unquantified the same way: the only insurer Figment names, Nexus Mutual, is an opt-in purchase limited to Ethereum double-sign; the "multi-tiered coverage, including insurance and Figment's balance sheet" on the solutions pages carries no limit and no basis; and the one thing Figment says it "contractually commit[s]" to is slashing ALERTING, not reimbursement. Before committing, make the contract state (a) your actual commission and its base per network, and (b) the coverage limit in figures and who underwrites it — because on the public record neither exists.
EVEverstake
Choose Everstake if rate transparency matters most
Rate transparency: 7/10 against 6/10 for Figment (weight 24)
Lock-up disclosure: 7/10 against 6/10 for Figment (weight 22)
Voting from custody: 6/10 against 5/10 for Figment (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 4 of 10weight 8.2 of 86Figment leads
Figment5/10 out of 10
Everstake1/10 out of 10
Lock-up disclosure
by 1 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Everstake leads
Figment6/10 out of 10
Everstake7/10 out of 10
Rate transparency
by 1 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Everstake leads
Figment6/10 out of 10
Everstake7/10 out of 10
Voting from custody
by 1 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Everstake leads
Figment5/10 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
Figment14/20Everstake14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Figment13.1/30Everstake11.4/30
Figment leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Figment2.7/10Everstake2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Figment3.2/8Everstake3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Figment8.3/18Everstake8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Figment unless the term Everstake leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Everstake if rate transparency matters most — it scores 7/10 to Figment's 6/10 there (weight 24).
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% (Figment 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% (Figment 5/10, 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% (Figment 6/10, 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
Figment scores 5 points above Everstake, led by slashing cover. Published scores, out of 100: Figment 72 (rank 4 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