Figment scores 11 points above Twinstake, led by slashing cover and rate transparency. Figment ranks #4 and Twinstake #6 of 7 published staking. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
FIFigment72
vs
Twinstake61
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #4 and #6 of 7
Figment scores 11 points above Twinstake, led by slashing cover and rate transparency.
FIFigment #4 of 772
Twinstake #6 of 761
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 2 of 4 published criteria; Twinstake on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermFigmentTwinstakeWeightPoints
Slashing cover5/102/108.2+6.4for Figment+3.3 of 32
Rate transparency6/102/105.8+6.0for Figment+3.1 of 32
Voting from custody5/106/104.8−1.2for Twinstake−0.6 of 32
Net of the terms+11.1
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread+0.1
Reproduced gap+11.2
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7261+11.0
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.TwinstakeScore 61Cayman-registered, Nethermind- and Webn-backed non-custodial validator operator built exclusively for professional investors (its own briefing notes state "Twinstake does not provide staking services to retail customers"), with a genuinely useful ungated per-protocol lock-up corpus and a shipped Ethereum exit-queue product — but with no fee published anywhere, no assets-under-stake figure, a lock-up corpus that lives only in PDFs whose own landing pages are empty stubs, and a loss-allocation claim that consists of the two words "slashing insurance" repeated across twelve pages without an insurer, a limit or a policy.Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 6/10Watch-out: Two of the three numbers an allocator underwrites are not public, so the term sheet has to carry them. Before committing, get in writing (a) the slashing instrument itself — carrier, aggregate and per-event limit, trigger (correlated vs single-validator, principal vs rewards), named beneficiary, and whether it survives a Twinstake insolvency — because the site's only statement is "external slashing insurance", repeated verbatim on twelve pages with no insurer and no limit, the one page that elaborates does so with an unquantified absolute ("assets are protected from validator penalties"), and the page that comes closest to a risk page, /about-us/compliance, is entirely KYC/AML/OFAC and never mentions insurance at all; and (b) the commission — rate, base, per-network variation and change clause — because there is no published figure of any kind, the 92-endpoint API you will integrate against contains zero occurrences of "fee" or "commission", and the only pricing-adjacent language on the domain is "Flexible commercial terms" in a client case study. Add a third line item: MEV. /insights/twinstake-approach-to-maximal-extractable-value-mev-on-ethereum describes relay strategy in detail and even notes that Twinstake "offers the ability to connect to paid-for relayer services", but never states who keeps execution-layer and MEV revenue or at what split — an unpriced MEV split plus a paid relay option is a second and third undisclosed cost vector. Finally, currency-check the good news: the per-protocol unbonding figures you can verify pre-signature sit in PDF briefing notes bulk-dated November 27, 2025 whose landing pages are empty stubs, the PDFs print no date on their face, and the Ethereum note still carries a pre-Pectra "entry churn rate is fixed at 8 validators per epoch" beside a post-Pectra 2048 ETH maximum — so model exit timing from live queue data (Twinstake's own note points to validatorqueue.com) rather than from the constants on the page. Do not plan on the Activation & Exit Calculator during diligence: it is available only inside the Twinstake Portal and through the authenticated API, to institutions already staking with Twinstake.
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactFigmentTwinstake
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."Twinstake's contact page (https://www.twinstake.com/contact, fetched 28 September 2026) lists under "Sales": "Contact our sales team to discuss pricing or request a demo". No fee, rate card, commission or percentage price appears on any of the 153 pages in https://www.twinstake.com/sitemap.xml (all fetched 28 September 2026, all HTTP 200), so there is no list price to compare; the rate is set in a sales conversation.
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 Twinstake's 2/10 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.
Twinstake
61#6 of 7
Pick it when
Pick Twinstake if voting from custody matters most — it scores 6/10 to Figment's 5/10 there (weight 20).
Strength
Unbonding disclosure — 6/10
Tradeoff
Two of the three numbers an allocator underwrites are not public, so the term sheet has to carry them. Before committing, get in writing (a) the slashing instrument itself — carrier, aggregate and per-event limit, trigger (correlated vs single-validator, principal vs rewards), named beneficiary, and whether it survives a Twinstake insolvency — because the site's only statement is "external slashing insurance", repeated verbatim on twelve pages with no insurer and no limit, the one page that elaborates does so with an unquantified absolute ("assets are protected from validator penalties"), and the page that comes closest to a risk page, /about-us/compliance, is entirely KYC/AML/OFAC and never mentions insurance at all; and (b) the commission — rate, base, per-network variation and change clause — because there is no published figure of any kind, the 92-endpoint API you will integrate against contains zero occurrences of "fee" or "commission", and the only pricing-adjacent language on the domain is "Flexible commercial terms" in a client case study. Add a third line item: MEV. /insights/twinstake-approach-to-maximal-extractable-value-mev-on-ethereum describes relay strategy in detail and even notes that Twinstake "offers the ability to connect to paid-for relayer services", but never states who keeps execution-layer and MEV revenue or at what split — an unpriced MEV split plus a paid relay option is a second and third undisclosed cost vector. Finally, currency-check the good news: the per-protocol unbonding figures you can verify pre-signature sit in PDF briefing notes bulk-dated November 27, 2025 whose landing pages are empty stubs, the PDFs print no date on their face, and the Ethereum note still carries a pre-Pectra "entry churn rate is fixed at 8 validators per epoch" beside a post-Pectra 2048 ETH maximum — so model exit timing from live queue data (Twinstake's own note points to validatorqueue.com) rather than from the constants on the page. Do not plan on the Activation & Exit Calculator during diligence: it is available only inside the Twinstake Portal and through the authenticated API, to institutions already staking with Twinstake.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
FIFigmentLeads
Choose Figment if slashing cover matters most
Slashing cover: 5/10 against 2/10 for Twinstake (weight 34)
Rate transparency: 6/10 against 2/10 for Twinstake (weight 24)
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.
Twinstake
Choose Twinstake if voting from custody matters most
Voting from custody: 6/10 against 5/10 for Figment (weight 20)
TwinstakeScore 61Cayman-registered, Nethermind- and Webn-backed non-custodial validator operator built exclusively for professional investors (its own briefing notes state "Twinstake does not provide staking services to retail customers"), with a genuinely useful ungated per-protocol lock-up corpus and a shipped Ethereum exit-queue product — but with no fee published anywhere, no assets-under-stake figure, a lock-up corpus that lives only in PDFs whose own landing pages are empty stubs, and a loss-allocation claim that consists of the two words "slashing insurance" repeated across twelve pages without an insurer, a limit or a policy.Strength: Unbonding disclosure — 6/10Watch-out: Two of the three numbers an allocator underwrites are not public, so the term sheet has to carry them. Before committing, get in writing (a) the slashing instrument itself — carrier, aggregate and per-event limit, trigger (correlated vs single-validator, principal vs rewards), named beneficiary, and whether it survives a Twinstake insolvency — because the site's only statement is "external slashing insurance", repeated verbatim on twelve pages with no insurer and no limit, the one page that elaborates does so with an unquantified absolute ("assets are protected from validator penalties"), and the page that comes closest to a risk page, /about-us/compliance, is entirely KYC/AML/OFAC and never mentions insurance at all; and (b) the commission — rate, base, per-network variation and change clause — because there is no published figure of any kind, the 92-endpoint API you will integrate against contains zero occurrences of "fee" or "commission", and the only pricing-adjacent language on the domain is "Flexible commercial terms" in a client case study. Add a third line item: MEV. /insights/twinstake-approach-to-maximal-extractable-value-mev-on-ethereum describes relay strategy in detail and even notes that Twinstake "offers the ability to connect to paid-for relayer services", but never states who keeps execution-layer and MEV revenue or at what split — an unpriced MEV split plus a paid relay option is a second and third undisclosed cost vector. Finally, currency-check the good news: the per-protocol unbonding figures you can verify pre-signature sit in PDF briefing notes bulk-dated November 27, 2025 whose landing pages are empty stubs, the PDFs print no date on their face, and the Ethereum note still carries a pre-Pectra "entry churn rate is fixed at 8 validators per epoch" beside a post-Pectra 2048 ETH maximum — so model exit timing from live queue data (Twinstake's own note points to validatorqueue.com) rather than from the constants on the page. Do not plan on the Activation & Exit Calculator during diligence: it is available only inside the Twinstake Portal and through the authenticated API, to institutions already staking with Twinstake.
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 3 of 10weight 8.2 of 86Figment leads
Figment5/10 out of 10
Twinstake2/10 out of 10
Lock-up disclosure
weight 5.3 of 86Tie
Figment6/10 out of 10
Twinstake6/10 out of 10
Rate transparency
by 4 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Figment leads
Figment6/10 out of 10
Twinstake2/10 out of 10
Voting from custody
by 1 of 10weight 4.8 of 86Twinstake leads
Figment5/10 out of 10
Twinstake6/10 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
Figment14/20Twinstake14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Figment13.1/30Twinstake8.8/30
Figment leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Figment2.7/10Twinstake2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Figment3.2/8Twinstake3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Figment8.3/18Twinstake8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Figment unless the term Twinstake leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Twinstake if voting from custody matters most — it scores 6/10 to Figment's 5/10 there (weight 20).
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, Twinstake 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, Twinstake 2/10)
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, Twinstake 6/10)
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 11 points above Twinstake, led by slashing cover and rate transparency. Published scores, out of 100: Figment 72 (rank 4 of 7 staking), Twinstake 61 (rank 6 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
