MetaMask and Trust Wallet tie on score at 80; the published tie-break orders them. MetaMask is ahead on key export and account recovery. MetaMask ranks #2 and Trust Wallet #3 of 11 published wallets. The ledger below shows where each side is ahead — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
MetaMask80
vs
Trust Wallet80
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #3 of 11
MetaMask and Trust Wallet tie on score at 80; the published tie-break orders them. MetaMask is ahead on key export and account recovery.
MetaMask #2 of 1180
Trust Wallet #3 of 1180
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termMetaMask leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Trust Wallet on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermMetaMaskTrust WalletWeightPoints
Clear signing6/108/107.2−3.7for Trust Wallet−1.9 of 32
Key export9/108/106.7+1.7for MetaMask+0.9 of 32
Account recovery9/107/104.3+2.2for MetaMask+1.2 of 32
Net of the terms+0.2
Reproduced gap+0.3
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below80800.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
MetaMaskScore 80The default EVM wallet: seed and per-account private-key export both documented on a stated BIP-44 path, a 2017-2025 public audit trail with three dated vendor advisories, and a pre-signature balance preview for contract interactions only, enforced onchain on 15 named networks for smart accounts on Extension.Strength: Key export — 9/10Watch-out: Read the fine print behind the three security claims on metamask.io before treating them as the product. All three are true and all three are narrower than they read. "Transaction protection available up to $10k" is not a wallet feature: it is Transaction Shield, "$9.99 monthly or $99 yearly", "Early access is now available on MetaMask Extension" only, capped at "Coverage of up to 100 transactions per month", and it explicitly "does not cover transactions deemed malicious by MetaMask" — so it does not pay out on the flagged case you most fear, and it does not exist on mobile. "Regularly audited by security firms" is backed by 17 genuinely public report links across 15 dated entries, but no report published since 2022 audits the shipped application itself: the 2023-2024 entries cover libraries, Snaps and build hardening, and the 2025 entries audit the mUSD stablecoin contract. And the pre-signature preview most buyers assume they are getting is, per MetaMask's own page (re-read 2026-09-28), available only "for contract interactions", not for native transfers; the enforced onchain simulation that reverts a transaction when execution diverges from the preview covers 15 named networks but is on by default only for "MetaMask smart accounts on Extension", and no page says what the confirmation screen shows when a simulation cannot be produced. If you pair a hardware device, two MetaMask troubleshooting pages tell you to enable blind signing, one of them with no qualifier at all. Finally, the exit that makes this record strong — pulling your encrypted vault out of local storage and decrypting it offline — is Chromium-desktop-only: MetaMask's own recovery page says it is "not currently possible" on Android or iOS, that the iOS method "is no longer working", that an Android solution is still being worked on, and that Firefox's data-encoding changes have made the instructions "of limited use".Trust WalletScore 80Mainstream self-custody mobile wallet with a genuinely documented simulate-and-decode signing screen on both platforms — but whose browser extension was supply-chain compromised in December 2025, still cannot export a raw private key, and whose audit register and security page carry no account of its own 2023 key-generation flaw.Strength: Key export — 8/10Watch-out: Read the vendor's own v2.68 post-mortem before you install the browser extension: https://trustwallet.com/blog/company/trust-wallet-browser-extension-v268-incident-community-update. Between 24 and 26 December 2025 an attacker published a backdoored build of the extension straight to the Chrome Web Store using a leaked API key, bypassing Trust Wallet's internal review; the vendor confirms 2,520 wallet addresses drained and approximately $8.5m in assets impacted. Reimbursement is promised but not finished: as of the post's last update on 17 July 2026 it still reads "We are finalizing the reimbursement workflow and ownership verification process", against "over 5,000 claims" for 2,520 verified addresses, and the page's own description calls itself "A work-in-progress update". The extension is also the weaker half of the product on exit: Developer Mode, the only documented private-key export, is "not available on Browser Extension". Separately, no vendor account of the 2022-23 key-generation flaw (CVE-2023-31290, exploited in the wild in December 2022 and March 2023) appears on its security-audit register or its /security page, both re-read on 2026-09-28, despite a published policy that remediated vulnerabilities will be disclosed. If you want Trust Wallet, the mobile app is the surface the evidence supports; treat the extension as the higher-risk, lower-portability half.
Quick facts
At a glance
3 of 4 rows read the same for both.
FactMetaMaskTrust Wallet
PricingSnapshot"Subscribing to Transaction Shield is $9.99 monthly or $99 yearly, and includes: Transaction Protection of up to $10,000 per month for eligible interactions", with "Coverage of up to 100 transactions per month", "Try it free for 14 days." and "Early access is now available on MetaMask Extension." (support.metamask.io/manage-crypto/transactions/transaction-shield/, fetched 28 October 2026). The wallet client itself carries no download or subscription price on any vendor page; MetaMask monetises through transaction fees, both vendor-stated on their own pages: the buy FAQ says "MetaMask receives a 1% fee on every transaction, calculated as a percentage of the fiat value you request" (support.metamask.io/manage-crypto/move-crypto/buy/faqs/, fetched 28 October 2026), and the swaps guide breaks a quote into "Quote rate", "Network fee" and "MetaMask fee: 0.875%" (support.metamask.io/trade/swap/user-guide-swaps/, fetched 28 October 2026).The wallet is free: "Yes. Trust Wallet is free to download and use on iOS, Android and as a browser extension. Network and service fees apply to transactions such as swaps or buying crypto, and they are shown before you confirm." (FAQ answer in the structured data of trustwallet.com, fetched 28 October 2026). No Trust Wallet swap rate is published on any vendor page loaded on 28 October 2026 — the homepage fee sentence recorded in August, which stated separate stablecoin and other-token swap rates, is gone — and the vendor's own statements now conflict. The swap page says "No, Trust Wallet does not charge any additional service fees for swaps. Any swap fees incurred by users for swapping would be network gas fees and third-party provider fees, which are independent of Trust Wallet." (trustwallet.com/swap, fetched 28 October 2026), and the help centre repeats "Trust Wallet does not charge a service fee - fees shown are from the routing protocol and the underlying networks." (support.trustwallet.com/en/articles/717169-how-to-perform-cross-chain-swaps-in-trust-wallet, fetched 28 October 2026). Yet a campaign post dated 27 August 2026 says "When you swap one eligible stablecoin for another on the same chain, the Trust Wallet swap fee is 0%" and "Each of those swaps normally carries a fee." (trustwallet.com/blog/campaigns/swap-selected-stablecoins-with-0-fees-on-trust-wallet), and a second, dated 16 September 2026, offers "0% Trust Wallet swap fees" on eligible staked and wrapped pairs (trustwallet.com/blog/campaigns/wap-staked-assets-with-0-fees-on-trust-wallet). Read the fee line on the in-app quote; the vendor publishes no percentage.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
Custody modelEditorialSelf-custody: the vendor cannot move funds without your keySelf-custody: the vendor cannot move funds without your key
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
MetaMask
80#2 of 11
Pick it when
Pick MetaMask if key export matters most — it scores 9/10 to Trust Wallet's 8/10 there (weight 28).
Strength
Key export — 9/10
Tradeoff
Read the fine print behind the three security claims on metamask.io before treating them as the product. All three are true and all three are narrower than they read. "Transaction protection available up to $10k" is not a wallet feature: it is Transaction Shield, "$9.99 monthly or $99 yearly", "Early access is now available on MetaMask Extension" only, capped at "Coverage of up to 100 transactions per month", and it explicitly "does not cover transactions deemed malicious by MetaMask" — so it does not pay out on the flagged case you most fear, and it does not exist on mobile. "Regularly audited by security firms" is backed by 17 genuinely public report links across 15 dated entries, but no report published since 2022 audits the shipped application itself: the 2023-2024 entries cover libraries, Snaps and build hardening, and the 2025 entries audit the mUSD stablecoin contract. And the pre-signature preview most buyers assume they are getting is, per MetaMask's own page (re-read 2026-09-28), available only "for contract interactions", not for native transfers; the enforced onchain simulation that reverts a transaction when execution diverges from the preview covers 15 named networks but is on by default only for "MetaMask smart accounts on Extension", and no page says what the confirmation screen shows when a simulation cannot be produced. If you pair a hardware device, two MetaMask troubleshooting pages tell you to enable blind signing, one of them with no qualifier at all. Finally, the exit that makes this record strong — pulling your encrypted vault out of local storage and decrypting it offline — is Chromium-desktop-only: MetaMask's own recovery page says it is "not currently possible" on Android or iOS, that the iOS method "is no longer working", that an Android solution is still being worked on, and that Firefox's data-encoding changes have made the instructions "of limited use".
Trust Wallet
80#3 of 11
Pick it when
Pick Trust Wallet if clear signing matters most — it scores 8/10 to MetaMask's 6/10 there (weight 30).
Strength
Key export — 8/10
Tradeoff
Read the vendor's own v2.68 post-mortem before you install the browser extension: https://trustwallet.com/blog/company/trust-wallet-browser-extension-v268-incident-community-update. Between 24 and 26 December 2025 an attacker published a backdoored build of the extension straight to the Chrome Web Store using a leaked API key, bypassing Trust Wallet's internal review; the vendor confirms 2,520 wallet addresses drained and approximately $8.5m in assets impacted. Reimbursement is promised but not finished: as of the post's last update on 17 July 2026 it still reads "We are finalizing the reimbursement workflow and ownership verification process", against "over 5,000 claims" for 2,520 verified addresses, and the page's own description calls itself "A work-in-progress update". The extension is also the weaker half of the product on exit: Developer Mode, the only documented private-key export, is "not available on Browser Extension". Separately, no vendor account of the 2022-23 key-generation flaw (CVE-2023-31290, exploited in the wild in December 2022 and March 2023) appears on its security-audit register or its /security page, both re-read on 2026-09-28, despite a published policy that remediated vulnerabilities will be disclosed. If you want Trust Wallet, the mobile app is the surface the evidence supports; treat the extension as the higher-risk, lower-portability half.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
MetaMask
Choose MetaMask if key export matters most
Key export: 9/10 against 8/10 for Trust Wallet (weight 28)
Account recovery: 9/10 against 7/10 for Trust Wallet (weight 18)
MetaMaskScore 80The default EVM wallet: seed and per-account private-key export both documented on a stated BIP-44 path, a 2017-2025 public audit trail with three dated vendor advisories, and a pre-signature balance preview for contract interactions only, enforced onchain on 15 named networks for smart accounts on Extension.Strength: Key export — 9/10Watch-out: Read the fine print behind the three security claims on metamask.io before treating them as the product. All three are true and all three are narrower than they read. "Transaction protection available up to $10k" is not a wallet feature: it is Transaction Shield, "$9.99 monthly or $99 yearly", "Early access is now available on MetaMask Extension" only, capped at "Coverage of up to 100 transactions per month", and it explicitly "does not cover transactions deemed malicious by MetaMask" — so it does not pay out on the flagged case you most fear, and it does not exist on mobile. "Regularly audited by security firms" is backed by 17 genuinely public report links across 15 dated entries, but no report published since 2022 audits the shipped application itself: the 2023-2024 entries cover libraries, Snaps and build hardening, and the 2025 entries audit the mUSD stablecoin contract. And the pre-signature preview most buyers assume they are getting is, per MetaMask's own page (re-read 2026-09-28), available only "for contract interactions", not for native transfers; the enforced onchain simulation that reverts a transaction when execution diverges from the preview covers 15 named networks but is on by default only for "MetaMask smart accounts on Extension", and no page says what the confirmation screen shows when a simulation cannot be produced. If you pair a hardware device, two MetaMask troubleshooting pages tell you to enable blind signing, one of them with no qualifier at all. Finally, the exit that makes this record strong — pulling your encrypted vault out of local storage and decrypting it offline — is Chromium-desktop-only: MetaMask's own recovery page says it is "not currently possible" on Android or iOS, that the iOS method "is no longer working", that an Android solution is still being worked on, and that Firefox's data-encoding changes have made the instructions "of limited use".
Trust Wallet
Choose Trust Wallet if clear signing matters most
Clear signing: 8/10 against 6/10 for MetaMask (weight 30)
Trust WalletScore 80Mainstream self-custody mobile wallet with a genuinely documented simulate-and-decode signing screen on both platforms — but whose browser extension was supply-chain compromised in December 2025, still cannot export a raw private key, and whose audit register and security page carry no account of its own 2023 key-generation flaw.Strength: Key export — 8/10Watch-out: Read the vendor's own v2.68 post-mortem before you install the browser extension: https://trustwallet.com/blog/company/trust-wallet-browser-extension-v268-incident-community-update. Between 24 and 26 December 2025 an attacker published a backdoored build of the extension straight to the Chrome Web Store using a leaked API key, bypassing Trust Wallet's internal review; the vendor confirms 2,520 wallet addresses drained and approximately $8.5m in assets impacted. Reimbursement is promised but not finished: as of the post's last update on 17 July 2026 it still reads "We are finalizing the reimbursement workflow and ownership verification process", against "over 5,000 claims" for 2,520 verified addresses, and the page's own description calls itself "A work-in-progress update". The extension is also the weaker half of the product on exit: Developer Mode, the only documented private-key export, is "not available on Browser Extension". Separately, no vendor account of the 2022-23 key-generation flaw (CVE-2023-31290, exploited in the wild in December 2022 and March 2023) appears on its security-audit register or its /security page, both re-read on 2026-09-28, despite a published policy that remediated vulnerabilities will be disclosed. If you want Trust Wallet, the mobile app is the surface the evidence supports; treat the extension as the higher-risk, lower-portability half.
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
Key export
by 1 of 10weight 6.7 of 86MetaMask leads
MetaMask9/10 out of 10
Trust Wallet8/10 out of 10
Clear signing
by 2 of 10weight 7.2 of 86Trust Wallet leads
MetaMask6/10 out of 10
Trust Wallet8/10 out of 10
Incident record
weight 5.8 of 86Tie
MetaMask8/10 out of 10
Trust Wallet8/10 out of 10
Account recovery
by 2 of 10weight 4.3 of 86MetaMask leads
MetaMask9/10 out of 10
Trust Wallet7/10 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
MetaMask14/20Trust Wallet14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
MetaMask18.9/30Trust Wallet18.8/30
MetaMask leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
MetaMask2.7/10Trust Wallet2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
MetaMask3.2/8Trust Wallet3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
MetaMask8.3/18Trust Wallet8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Same published score — pick by the criterion that matters to you.
Pick MetaMask if key export matters most — it scores 9/10 to Trust Wallet's 8/10 there (weight 28).
Pick Trust Wallet if clear signing matters most — it scores 8/10 to MetaMask's 6/10 there (weight 30).
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
Key failure: your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.
Scored by Can I export my own keys and use them elsewhere? · 28% (MetaMask 9/10, Trust Wallet 8/10)
Scored by Can I see exactly what I am signing? · 30% (MetaMask 6/10, Trust Wallet 8/10)
Scored by What has gone wrong, and did they publish it? · 24% (MetaMask 8/10, Trust Wallet 8/10)
Scored by If I lose my device, how do I get back in? · 18% (MetaMask 9/10, Trust Wallet 7/10)
MetaMask and Trust Wallet tie on score at 80; the published tie-break orders them. MetaMask is ahead on key export and account recovery. Published scores, out of 100: MetaMask 80 (rank 2 of 11 wallets), Trust Wallet 80 (rank 3 of 11).
ReviewedRe-read in progressOverdue; re-read by 10 November 2026.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.
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
