Skip to main content

Head-to-head · Stablecoins

frxUSD (Frax USD) vs Ripple USD (RLUSD) Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads by 19 points.

Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 19 points above frxUSD (Frax USD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. frxUSD (Frax USD) ranks #7 and Ripple USD (RLUSD) #3 of 11 published stablecoins. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.

frxUSD (Frax USD)56
Ripple USD (RLUSD)75
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #3 of 11
Methodology v2026.10.18Ranking snapshot Evidence verified through 4 published criteria5 score dimensions Receipt #cc-VS-FRXUSD-FRAX-USD-VS-RIPPLE-USD-RLUSD-27017f2b
Published verdictRanking snapshot 3 November 2026

Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads by 19 points

Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 19 points above frxUSD (Frax USD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope.

frxUSD (Frax USD) #7 of 1156
Ripple USD (RLUSD) #3 of 1175
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termRipple USD (RLUSD) leads on 4 of 4 published criteria; frxUSD (Frax USD) on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermRipple USD (RLUSD)frxUSD (Frax USD)WeightPoints
Counterparty and insolvency rank5/102/107.2+5.6for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+2.9 of 32
Redemption right exercised5/103/106.7+3.5for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+1.8 of 32
Reserve and assurance scope8/103/105.8+7.5for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+3.8 of 32
Seizure and upgrade authority5/103/104.3+2.2for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+1.2 of 32
Net of the terms+18.8
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+18.7
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7556+19.0

Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.

Quick facts

At a glance

2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactfrxUSD (Frax USD)Ripple USD (RLUSD)
PricingSnapshotNO BINDING DOCUMENT PRICES MINT OR REDEMPTION. The FraxNet Terms of Service, https://net.frax.com/terms (fetched 29 September 2026; the page's "Last updated" line renders the fetch date, and the extracted text is the same 16,771 characters as in August), contain 0 occurrences of "redeem", "redemption", "minimum" and "frxUSD", and no fee table of any kind. PUBLISHED FEES — Frax documentation, https://docs.frax.com/frxusd/fiat-onramp-offramp (fetched 29 September 2026), whose "Fees" section lists exactly two items: Exchange Fee, "May be applied by Bridge.xyz during currency conversion"; RWA Liquidation Fee, "A 1 BPS conversion fee may apply if real-world assets (RWAs) are being liquidated to meet cash redemptions". Both are conditional and the exchange leg is unquantified. The same page gates the fiat route: "All users must complete Persona KYC/KYB and Bridge.xyz verification", and the only supported account types are "U.S. checking accounts" and "U.S. savings accounts". ON-CHAIN FEES AND CAPACITY (label: eth_call reads at Ethereum blocks 26,082,253-26,082,262, not page prices): the permissionless USDC route 0x4F95C5bA0C7c69FB2f9340E190cCeE890B3bd87c still returns mintFee() = 0 and redeemFee() = 0, but holds 0 USDC (totalAssets() = 0; it held 1,385,323.315876 USDC on 19 August 2026), so it cannot pay out today; the RWA routes USTB 0x5fbAa3A3B489199338fbD85F7E3D444dc0504F33, BUIDL 0xe827abf9f462ac4f147753d86bc5f91e186e4e9c and WTGXX 0x860Cc723935FC9A15fF8b1A94237a711DFeF7857 return mintFee() = 0 and redeemFee() = 1e14, i.e. 1 basis point, and require addresses "onboarded to hold BUIDL, USTB, or WTGXX" (https://docs.frax.com/frxusd/mint-and-redeem-routes); the USDB route 0xFE2Ea8dE262d956e852F12DE108fda57171a0a29 is fee-free and holds 1.538966 USDB; an AUSD route 0x537bed9200fc5a14ab56e554016753676eff12b0, added as a minter at block 25,832,426 and not listed on the routes page, charges a 1e14 (1 basis point) redeemFee and holds 35,696.844801 AUSD. frxUSD totalSupply() = 93,369,845.27. NOT A PRICE: https://docs.frax.com/frxusd still advertises "Earn 4.1% APY from Treasury yields (subject to treasury backing performance)" — the sfrxUSD/FraxNet savings product, which this page does not score.NO FEE SCHEDULE AND NO MINIMUM IS PUBLISHED ANYWHERE — a silence finding, re-established on 29 September 2026. (1) THE BINDING TERMS, https://ripple.com/legal/stablecoin/ (still stamped "Last updated: October 3, 2024", fetched 29 September 2026): the string "Fee" appears exactly once, in §11.10: "Although a Customer can always redeem one (1) RLUSD for 1 U.S. dollar ($1) with Ripple, less Fees, Ripple cannot control how third parties quote or value RLUSD, and Ripple is not responsible for any losses or other issues that may result from fluctuations in the value of RLUSD." "Fees" is capitalised as a defined term and defined nowhere in this document; the definition belongs to the RLUSD Customer Agreement. "minimum" also occurs once, about the Reserve's market value, not about redemption. (2) THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT IS UNREACHABLE: https://ripple.com/legal/ returns HTTP 404; the legal navigation on the terms page still lists eleven documents and the RLUSD Customer Agreement is not among them; https://ripple.com/legal/rlusd-customer-agreement/ and https://ripple.com/legal/stablecoin-customer-agreement/ both returned HTTP 404 on 29 September 2026. (3) THE OTHER ISSUER SURFACES ARE SILENT: the whitepaper (https://ripple.com/reports/rlusd-whitepaper.pdf, "Version date — June 4, 2026") describes the issuance and redemption flows and states no fee, no minimum ticket and no settlement deadline; the transparency page (https://ripple.com/products/stablecoin/transparency/) says "redemptions with strict SLAs" and publishes no SLA, fee or minimum. (4) WHAT IS PUBLISHED INSTEAD, AND IT IS NOT A PRICE: the whitepaper's eligibility rule, "RLUSD is distributed to enterprise partners only. Ripple will not conduct B2C transactions", and its reserve buffer, "to ensure the total value of RLUSD reserve assets always equals at least 103% of the total RLUSD in circulation". An undisclosed price is not the same as a low one; this record scores it as an absence, not a benefit — no list price is published, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
From the published criteria

Which should you pick?

frxUSD (Frax USD)

56#7 of 11
Pick it when
frxUSD (Frax USD) leads Ripple USD (RLUSD) on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Redemption right exercised — 3/10
Tradeoff
This record scores frxUSD; the legacy pair does not belong in it. Every legacy-token read reproduces at pinned block 25,790,057 on 2026-08-19: legacy FRAX 0x853d955aCEf822Db058eb8505911ED77F175b99e returns name() = 'Frax', symbol() = 'FRAX', totalSupply() = 219,320,045.8726, more than twice frxUSD's 99,546,198.812956; legacy sFRAX 0xA663B02CF0a4b149d2aD41910CB81e23e1c41c32 returns 'Staked FRAX' / 'sFRAX' at 56,157,367.8378; sfrxUSD 0xcf62F905562626CfcDD2261162a51fd02Fc9c5b6 returns 'Staked Frax USD' / 'sfrxUSD' at 30,289,675.5744; and FXS 0x3432B6A60D23Ca0dFCa7761B7ab56459D9C964D0 still returns 'Frax Share' / 'FXS'. FIP-428 renames the governance token: gov.frax.finance topic 3652, "[FIP - 428] Frax North Star Proposal - V2" (2025-03-09), states "FXS will be renamed to FRAX" and "'Legacy' FRAX (the original stablecoin) will be renamed to Legacy Frax Dollar". On the read date the string "FRAX" could therefore mean a legacy stablecoin, a governance token mid-rename, or the retired brand of frxUSD. FIP-430 proposes, and nothing records as done, "(1) establishing two distinct balance sheets—one for Legacy FRAX Dollar and one for frxUSD"; neither FIP carries an execution receipt. It also says "the Frax Finance DAO will no longer guarantee 1-to-1 migration between Legacy FRAX Dollar and frxUSD" and leaves Legacy FRAX to "continue to operate under its AMO-driven, DeFi-native model". net.frax.com says frxUSD "can always be redeemed 1:1 for US dollars", while the Terms of Service on the same domain contain the word "redeem" zero times and still describe "a fractional-algorithmic stablecoin". And on 2026-09-29 the permissionless USDC route held 0 USDC and the fee-free USDB route 1.538966 USDB, so the documented permissionless par exit could not pay out, while the undisclosed live mint authority is still there.

Ripple USD (RLUSD)

75#3 of 11
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Ripple USD (RLUSD) if counterparty and insolvency rank matters most — it scores 5/10 to frxUSD (Frax USD)'s 2/10 there (weight 30).
Strength
Reserve and assurance scope — 8/10
Tradeoff
The regulatory scaffolding around RLUSD is genuinely better than most of this pool, and the reserve disclosure is the best in it — CUSIP-level, Deloitte-examined, monthly, with a named custodian. None of that is the same thing as a claim you can enforce, and the gap between the two is this record's whole point. The binding RLUSD User Terms say the reserve is “segregated from SCTC's other assets” and then say, in the same subsection, “RLUSD does not convey any direct or indirect property interest in or right to withdraw any assets held in the Reserve”, and later that “Ripple does not provide any trust or fiduciary services to any User under these Terms.” Meanwhile the whitepaper says deposits are “held specifically for the benefit of RLUSD holders”, the attestation criteria say the Reserve holds assets “on behalf of RLUSD holders”, and the OCC letter describes “collateral trustee services for the benefit of RLUSD holders on a fiduciary basis” — for a bank that does not yet exist, under an approval the OCC expressly labels preliminary. The contract governs, and it gives the holder a segregation covenant with no stated insolvency rank, no property interest and no fiduciary duty. Second caveat, on comparability: the 2026-09-29 re-read raised criterion 2 from 4 to 5, the bottom of the band the methodology names for RLUSD, and level with USDC. The terms grant every holder a redemption right and then condition it on becoming a Customer, and the 2026 whitepaper's gate is the same shape as Circle Mint's closure to individuals, which the ladder already weighs for USDC in that band: “Ripple will not conduct B2C transactions.” Third: the terms are stale in a way that matters. They are stamped “Last updated: October 3, 2024” — and still so on 2026-09-29, almost two years on — and in the interim the OCC preliminarily approved a Ripple national trust bank intended to hold the reserve as collateral trustee. If that bank opens, the custody architecture behind this coin changes and the binding document describing it will not have moved. Finally, one number that is not a defect but should not be misread: the LEI on the current whitepaper resolves to the right company with entity status ACTIVE, but its GLEIF REGISTRATION status is LAPSED. Those are different fields; a lapsed identifier registration is not a lapsed charter, and it is scored as nothing more. Two things changed when every document was read again. First, the NYDFS redeemability question is settled, in Ripple's favour on the gate itself: the June 8, 2022 guidance, retrieved this session as bytes from the Internet Archive's raw replay of the dfs.ny.gov URL, confers a par redemption right on “any lawful holder” but expressly subjects it to “reasonable, non-burdensome conditions … such as the ability of the stablecoin holder to onboard successfully with the Issuer before redeeming.” The regulator permits the onboarding gate. What the regulator also requires — “clear, conspicuous redemption policies, approved in advance by DFS in writing”, with a default of T+2 where the issuer does not state its own — Ripple does not publish, which is why criterion 2 goes no higher than 5, the bottom of its band. Second, criterion 4 scores 5, not 6: the chain has twenty role grants; the MINTER and BURNER roles are held not only behind the multisig but also by a Wormhole NttManager proxy that appears in no Ripple document; and because MultiSign weights signatures, replacing the code takes three signatures, not seven. The freeze power had been exercised 192 times by August 2026; the 2026-09-29 re-read counts 214 against 214 distinct addresses since August 2024, 22 of them new and most on 2026-08-25, with not a single reversal and no published record of any of it. Nothing in the reserve or the attestation changed; the CUSIP schedule was re-read position by position and every figure reproduced.
Self-identify in 10 seconds

Which one is actually for you?

frxUSD (Frax USD)

frxUSD (Frax USD) leads Ripple USD (RLUSD) on no published criterion

  • Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Ripple USD (RLUSD)Leads

Choose Ripple USD (RLUSD) if counterparty and insolvency rank matters most

  • Counterparty and insolvency rank: 5/10 against 2/10 for frxUSD (Frax USD) (weight 30)
  • Redemption right exercised: 5/10 against 3/10 for frxUSD (Frax USD) (weight 28)
  • Reserve and assurance scope: 8/10 against 3/10 for frxUSD (Frax USD) (weight 24)
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

Counterparty and insolvency rank

by 3 of 10weight 7.2 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
frxUSD (Frax USD)2 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5 out of 10

Redemption right exercised

by 2 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
frxUSD (Frax USD)3 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5 out of 10

Reserve and assurance scope

by 5 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
frxUSD (Frax USD)3 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)8 out of 10

Seizure and upgrade authority

by 2 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
frxUSD (Frax USD)3 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5 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
frxUSD (Frax USD)14/20Ripple USD (RLUSD)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
frxUSD (Frax USD)6.5/30Ripple USD (RLUSD)13.7/30
Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
frxUSD (Frax USD)2.7/10Ripple USD (RLUSD)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
frxUSD (Frax USD)3.2/8Ripple USD (RLUSD)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
frxUSD (Frax USD)8.3/18Ripple USD (RLUSD)8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order

Choose Ripple USD (RLUSD) unless the term frxUSD (Frax USD) leads on is the one you are buying.

frxUSD (Frax USD) leads Ripple USD (RLUSD) on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.

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 Who can freeze, burn or replace your balance — and have they? · 18% (frxUSD (Frax USD) 3/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
  • Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.
    Scored by Who exactly owes you the dollar, and where do you rank when they fail? · 30% (frxUSD (Frax USD) 2/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
    Scored by What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · 24% (frxUSD (Frax USD) 3/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 8/10)
  • Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.
    Scored by Can the person actually holding it get a dollar back at par — and has anyone, at size? · 28% (frxUSD (Frax USD) 3/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Custody failure, Regulatory failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Questions

Frequently asked questions

Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 19 points above frxUSD (Frax USD), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. Published scores, out of 100: frxUSD (Frax USD) 56 (rank 7 of 11 stablecoins), Ripple USD (RLUSD) 75 (rank 3 of 11).

Related pages

Go deeper

Trust & process
Individual reviews
Other comparisons
Written and reviewed by Founder
Reviewed Next review by Methodology v2026.10.18
How this page is reviewed

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.

Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.

How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money

Free advisorNo signup needed

Skip the comparison — get your best match

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 signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account

Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research