Satochip scores 11 points above SecuX, led by rebuildable firmware, genuine check, and maker independence. SecuX ranks #20 and Satochip #16 of 23 published hardware wallets. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
SESecuX46
vs
Satochip57
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #20 and #16 of 23
Satochip scores 11 points above SecuX, led by rebuildable firmware, genuine check, and maker independence.
SESecuX #20 of 2346
Satochip #16 of 2357
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termSatochip leads on 3 of 6 published criteria; SecuX on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermSatochipSecuXWeightPoints
Rebuildable firmware5/103/106.5+3.4for Satochip+1.7 of 32
Genuine check7/102/102.9+3.7for Satochip+1.9 of 32
Maker independence10/104/102.6+4.1for Satochip+2.1 of 32
Net of the terms+11.2
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 below5746+11.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
SatochipScore 57An open applet on a €25 NFC card that independent wallets sign with directly — no screenStrength: Sign and recover without the maker — 10/10Watch-out: No screen: you approve what the phone or computer shows, so a compromised host can mislead youSecuXScore 46Seven years without a fund loss, but an uncertified chip and partial firmware source with the signing code withheld — USB only, $49Strength: Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss — 10/10Watch-out: Names its secure chip only as an Infineon SLE family with an EAL5+ claim, so no certificate can be matched
Quick facts
At a glance
4 of 5 rows read the same for both.
FactSecuXSatochip
One-time priceSnapshotSecuX W10 at $49.00 on the US store https://secuxtech.com/products/secux-w10-series?country=US, read 1 October 2026.Satochip at €25.00 including VAT on https://satochip.io/product/satochip/, read 1 October 2026; the store prices in euros only and publishes no US dollar list price.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotus, europe, globalus, europe, global
Custody modelEditorialSelf-custody: the keys stay on the deviceSelf-custody: the keys stay on the device
Security postureSnapshotSecure element, no listed certificate; partly open source; no air-gapped signing.Secure element, no listed certificate; partly open source; no air-gapped signing.
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
SE
SecuX
46#20 of 23
Pick it when
SecuX leads Satochip 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
Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss — 10/10
Tradeoff
Names its secure chip only as an Infineon SLE family with an EAL5+ claim, so no certificate can be matched
Satochip
57#16 of 23
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Satochip if rebuildable firmware matters most — it scores 5/10 to SecuX's 3/10 there (weight 27).
Strength
Sign and recover without the maker — 10/10
Tradeoff
No screen: you approve what the phone or computer shows, so a compromised host can mislead you
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
SESecuX
SecuX leads Satochip on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
SecuXScore 46Seven years without a fund loss, but an uncertified chip and partial firmware source with the signing code withheld — USB only, $49Strength: Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss — 10/10Watch-out: Names its secure chip only as an Infineon SLE family with an EAL5+ claim, so no certificate can be matched
SatochipLeads
Choose Satochip if rebuildable firmware matters most
Rebuildable firmware: 5/10 against 3/10 for SecuX (weight 27)
Genuine check: 7/10 against 2/10 for SecuX (weight 12)
Maker independence: 10/10 against 4/10 for SecuX (weight 11)
SatochipScore 57An open applet on a €25 NFC card that independent wallets sign with directly — no screenStrength: Sign and recover without the maker — 10/10Watch-out: No screen: you approve what the phone or computer shows, so a compromised host can mislead you
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 8612 of 12 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Secure element
weight 6.5 of 86Tie
SecuX3/10 out of 10
Satochip3/10 out of 10
Rebuildable firmware
by 2 of 10weight 6.5 of 86Satochip leads
SecuX3/10 out of 10
Satochip5/10 out of 10
Genuine check
by 5 of 10weight 2.9 of 86Satochip leads
SecuX2/10 out of 10
Satochip7/10 out of 10
Checkable keys
weight 2.9 of 86Tie
SecuX0/10 out of 10
Satochip0/10 out of 10
Maker independence
by 6 of 10weight 2.6 of 86Satochip leads
SecuX4/10 out of 10
Satochip10/10 out of 10
Fund-loss record
weight 2.6 of 86Tie
SecuX10/10 out of 10
Satochip10/10 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
SecuX14/20Satochip14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
SecuX8.2/30Satochip12.5/30
Satochip leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
SecuX2.7/10Satochip2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
SecuX3.2/8Satochip3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
SecuX5.5/18Satochip5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Satochip unless the term SecuX leads on is the one you are buying.
SecuX leads Satochip 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
Key failure: your own keys are made, shown or recovered unsafely.
Scored by Secure element you can look up · 27% (SecuX 3/10, Satochip 3/10)
Scored by Firmware anyone can rebuild and match · 27% (SecuX 3/10, Satochip 5/10)
Scored by Proof the device is genuine and unmodified · 12% (SecuX 2/10, Satochip 7/10)
Scored by Key creation and signing you can check · 12% (SecuX 0/10, Satochip 0/10)
Scored by Sign and recover without the maker · 11% (SecuX 4/10, Satochip 10/10)
Scored by Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss · 11% (SecuX 10/10, Satochip 10/10)
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored, except Information failure, which the provider pages show as a fact.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Satochip scores 11 points above SecuX, led by rebuildable firmware, genuine check, and maker independence. Published scores, out of 100: SecuX 46 (rank 20 of 23 hardware wallets), Satochip 57 (rank 16 of 23).
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
