Trezor scores 34 points above SecuX, led by rebuildable firmware, secure element, and checkable keys. Trezor ranks #2 and SecuX #20 of 23 published hardware wallets. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Trezor80
vs
SESecuX46
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #20 of 23
Trezor scores 34 points above SecuX, led by rebuildable firmware, secure element, and checkable keys.
Trezor #2 of 2380
SESecuX #20 of 2346
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termTrezor leads on 5 of 6 published criteria; SecuX on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermTrezorSecuXWeightPoints
Rebuildable firmware10/103/106.5+11.8for Trezor+6.0 of 32
Secure element10/103/106.5+11.8for Trezor+6.0 of 32
Checkable keys7/100/102.9+5.2for Trezor+2.7 of 32
Genuine check7/102/102.9+3.7for Trezor+1.9 of 32
Maker independence10/104/102.6+4.1for Trezor+2.1 of 32
Fund-loss record7/1010/102.6−2.1for SecuX−1.1 of 32
Net of the terms+34.6
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+34.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below8046+34.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
TrezorScore 80Trezor Safe 3: certified chip you can look up — firmware rebuilt and matched by independent reviewers, at EUR 59 (US$59)Strength: Secure element you can look up — 10/10Watch-out: Graded on the Safe 3, which first shipped in November 2023, so its record counts three years, not the brand's twelveSecuXScore 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
3 of 5 rows read the same for both.
FactTrezorSecuX
One-time priceSnapshotTrezor Safe 3: the Product JSON-LD on https://trezor.io/trezor-safe-3 reads "priceCurrency":"USD","price":59, read 1 October 2026 and again 28 October 2026; the Bitcoin-only edition is the same price. The same page shows a visitor in Germany "Buy for EUR 59" (read 28 October 2026).SecuX W10 at $49.00 on the US store https://secuxtech.com/products/secux-w10-series?country=US, read 1 October 2026.
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, EAL6+ certified; fully 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?
Trezor
80#2 of 23
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Trezor if rebuildable firmware matters most — it scores 10/10 to SecuX's 3/10 there (weight 27).
Strength
Secure element you can look up — 10/10
Tradeoff
Graded on the Safe 3, which first shipped in November 2023, so its record counts three years, not the brand's twelve
SE
SecuX
46#20 of 23
Pick it when
Pick SecuX if fund-loss record matters most — it scores 10/10 to Trezor's 7/10 there (weight 11).
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
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
TrezorLeads
Choose Trezor if secure element matters most
Secure element: 10/10 against 3/10 for SecuX (weight 27)
Rebuildable firmware: 10/10 against 3/10 for SecuX (weight 27)
Genuine check: 7/10 against 2/10 for SecuX (weight 12)
TrezorScore 80Trezor Safe 3: certified chip you can look up — firmware rebuilt and matched by independent reviewers, at EUR 59 (US$59)Strength: Secure element you can look up — 10/10Watch-out: Graded on the Safe 3, which first shipped in November 2023, so its record counts three years, not the brand's twelve
SESecuX
Choose SecuX if fund-loss record matters most
Fund-loss record: 10/10 against 7/10 for Trezor (weight 11)
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
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
by 7 of 10weight 6.5 of 86Trezor leads
Trezor10/10 out of 10
SecuX3/10 out of 10
Rebuildable firmware
by 7 of 10weight 6.5 of 86Trezor leads
Trezor10/10 out of 10
SecuX3/10 out of 10
Genuine check
by 5 of 10weight 2.9 of 86Trezor leads
Trezor7/10 out of 10
SecuX2/10 out of 10
Checkable keys
by 7 of 10weight 2.9 of 86Trezor leads
Trezor7/10 out of 10
SecuX0/10 out of 10
Maker independence
by 6 of 10weight 2.6 of 86Trezor leads
Trezor10/10 out of 10
SecuX4/10 out of 10
Fund-loss record
by 3 of 10weight 2.6 of 86SecuX leads
Trezor7/10 out of 10
SecuX10/10 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
Trezor14/20SecuX14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Trezor21.5/30SecuX8.2/30
Trezor leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Trezor2.7/10SecuX2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Trezor3.2/8SecuX3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Trezor5.5/18SecuX5.5/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Trezor unless the term SecuX leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick SecuX if fund-loss record matters most — it scores 10/10 to Trezor's 7/10 there (weight 11).
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% (Trezor 10/10, SecuX 3/10)
Scored by Firmware anyone can rebuild and match · 27% (Trezor 10/10, SecuX 3/10)
Scored by Proof the device is genuine and unmodified · 12% (Trezor 7/10, SecuX 2/10)
Scored by Key creation and signing you can check · 12% (Trezor 7/10, SecuX 0/10)
Scored by Sign and recover without the maker · 11% (Trezor 10/10, SecuX 4/10)
Scored by Years in buyers' hands without a device-level fund loss · 11% (Trezor 7/10, SecuX 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
Trezor scores 34 points above SecuX, led by rebuildable firmware, secure element, and checkable keys. Published scores, out of 100: Trezor 80 (rank 2 of 23 hardware wallets), SecuX 46 (rank 20 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
