USDT (Tether) vs Ripple USD (RLUSD) Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads by 18 points.
Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 18 points above USDT (Tether), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. USDT (Tether) ranks #6 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.
USDT (Tether)57
vs
Ripple USD (RLUSD)75
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #6 and #3 of 11
Ripple USD (RLUSD) scores 18 points above USDT (Tether), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope.
USDT (Tether) #6 of 1157
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 3 of 4 published criteria; USDT (Tether) on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermRipple USD (RLUSD)USDT (Tether)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 scope8/102/105.8+9.0for Ripple USD (RLUSD)+4.6 of 32
Net of the terms+18.1
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.2
Reproduced gap+17.9
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7557+18.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
Ripple USD (RLUSD)Score 75The best-evidenced reserve in the pool sitting behind a much weaker holder claim: Deloitte examines CUSIP-level T-bills at a named custodian monthly, while the binding terms tell the holder they have no property interest in any of it, no fiduciary is owed to them, and they cannot redeem unless they become an institutional Customer under a contract Ripple does not publish.Strength: Reserve and assurance scope — 8/10Watch-out: 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.USDT (Tether)Score 57The largest fiat-reserve stablecoin, issued by El Salvador-authorised Tether International, S.A. de C.V. under terms still governed by British Virgin Islands law — terms that expressly disclaim segregation and insurance, make the redemption right "personal to you" rather than attached to the token, gate par redemption behind a 100,000 USD minimum and a $1,000 floor fee, and whose quarterly ISAE 3000R assurance shows a quarter of the reserve in gold, bitcoin, equities, secured loans and an "Other Investments" bucket defined only as everything that is not the other categories.Strength: Seizure and upgrade authority — 5/10Watch-out: That there is no such thing as "your" dollar at Tether — and, for almost everyone reading this, no such thing as your redemption right either. The buyer's mental model is a segregated dollar held for them, redeemable on demand. The binding terms say the opposite twice over. Balances are "not segregated assets held in your name or for your benefit but reflected only in the books and records of Tether"; the reserve is defined as every asset the company owns rather than a ring-fence carved out for holders; the claim is booked as an IFRS 9 "refund liability", an unsecured payable. And the exit is not a property of the token: "The right to purchase Tether Tokens or have Tether Tokens redeemed is a contractual right personal to you" — unlike USDC's terms, which assign the right onward to "any subsequent Holder", Tether's right belongs to the verified customer who contracted for it and does not travel with the coin you bought on an exchange. Four things compound it. (1) Even for that customer the exit is gated: 100,000 USD minimum to redeem and a fee of "The greater of $1,000 or 0.1%", which is 1.0% at that minimum, not the advertised 0.1%. (2) A quarter of the reserve — US$47.1bn of gold, bitcoin, equities, corporate bonds, an unnamed US$13.45bn secured-loan book and a US$5.24bn "Other Investments" bucket defined only as whatever fits no other row — sits behind an equity buffer of US$4.11bn that just shrank 35% on a US$3.17bn half-year loss, with no custodian named anywhere and an unprovisioned New York class action disclosed on the same page. (3) The contract is construed as a British Virgin Islands contract even though the issuer redomiciled to El Salvador, so the register entry and the governing law point at different jurisdictions. (4) If you are a US Person you are contractually prohibited from holding it at all. The deepest market in crypto is not the same thing as a claim you can enforce.
Quick facts
At a glance
2 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactUSDT (Tether)Ripple USD (RLUSD)
PricingSnapshothttps://tether.to/en/fees (HTTP 200 after redirect to /en/fees/, fetched 29 September 2026) publishes exactly four rows: “Minimum Tether Token acquisition or redemption amount” — “100,000 USD”; “Fee per redemption” — “The greater of $1,000 or 0.1%”; “Fee per acquisition” — “0.1%”; “Verification fee” — “150 USD in Tether Tokens”. On the verification fee, quoted continuously: “This amount is non-refundable but can be part of your redemption. The verification fee is intended to ensure that only those who are serious about establishing an account apply. The fee also helps offset a portion of the incurred costs from the execution of a robust verification process. Tether maintains the sole discretion to approve or not approve accounts. By submitting a verification request you agree that the 150 USD₮ deposit is non-refundable.” Also: “Tether does not offer wallet functionality for any digital tokens. Withdrawal requests for digital tokens held by Tether are evaluated per request and can take several days to process.” WORKED EXAMPLE (label: derived arithmetic, not a quote): the redemption floor equals 10 basis points only at one million US dollars, so at the published minimum of one hundred thousand it is 1.0 per cent; a minimum-size round trip costs 100 + 1,000 + 150 = 1,250 US dollars on 100,000, i.e. 1.25 per cent. The 30 June 2026 Reserves Report (BDO Advisory Services S.r.l., signed “Milan, 31 July 2026”, still the newest on 29 September 2026) books the fee into the liability: “As per its definition, contractual redemption value of the token takes into consideration the redemption fee of 10 basis points.”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?
USDT (Tether)
57#6 of 11
Pick it when
USDT (Tether) 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
Seizure and upgrade authority — 5/10
Tradeoff
That there is no such thing as "your" dollar at Tether — and, for almost everyone reading this, no such thing as your redemption right either. The buyer's mental model is a segregated dollar held for them, redeemable on demand. The binding terms say the opposite twice over. Balances are "not segregated assets held in your name or for your benefit but reflected only in the books and records of Tether"; the reserve is defined as every asset the company owns rather than a ring-fence carved out for holders; the claim is booked as an IFRS 9 "refund liability", an unsecured payable. And the exit is not a property of the token: "The right to purchase Tether Tokens or have Tether Tokens redeemed is a contractual right personal to you" — unlike USDC's terms, which assign the right onward to "any subsequent Holder", Tether's right belongs to the verified customer who contracted for it and does not travel with the coin you bought on an exchange. Four things compound it. (1) Even for that customer the exit is gated: 100,000 USD minimum to redeem and a fee of "The greater of $1,000 or 0.1%", which is 1.0% at that minimum, not the advertised 0.1%. (2) A quarter of the reserve — US$47.1bn of gold, bitcoin, equities, corporate bonds, an unnamed US$13.45bn secured-loan book and a US$5.24bn "Other Investments" bucket defined only as whatever fits no other row — sits behind an equity buffer of US$4.11bn that just shrank 35% on a US$3.17bn half-year loss, with no custodian named anywhere and an unprovisioned New York class action disclosed on the same page. (3) The contract is construed as a British Virgin Islands contract even though the issuer redomiciled to El Salvador, so the register entry and the governing law point at different jurisdictions. (4) If you are a US Person you are contractually prohibited from holding it at all. The deepest market in crypto is not the same thing as a claim you can enforce.
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 USDT (Tether)'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?
USDT (Tether)
USDT (Tether) 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.
USDT (Tether)Score 57The largest fiat-reserve stablecoin, issued by El Salvador-authorised Tether International, S.A. de C.V. under terms still governed by British Virgin Islands law — terms that expressly disclaim segregation and insurance, make the redemption right "personal to you" rather than attached to the token, gate par redemption behind a 100,000 USD minimum and a $1,000 floor fee, and whose quarterly ISAE 3000R assurance shows a quarter of the reserve in gold, bitcoin, equities, secured loans and an "Other Investments" bucket defined only as everything that is not the other categories.Strength: Seizure and upgrade authority — 5/10Watch-out: That there is no such thing as "your" dollar at Tether — and, for almost everyone reading this, no such thing as your redemption right either. The buyer's mental model is a segregated dollar held for them, redeemable on demand. The binding terms say the opposite twice over. Balances are "not segregated assets held in your name or for your benefit but reflected only in the books and records of Tether"; the reserve is defined as every asset the company owns rather than a ring-fence carved out for holders; the claim is booked as an IFRS 9 "refund liability", an unsecured payable. And the exit is not a property of the token: "The right to purchase Tether Tokens or have Tether Tokens redeemed is a contractual right personal to you" — unlike USDC's terms, which assign the right onward to "any subsequent Holder", Tether's right belongs to the verified customer who contracted for it and does not travel with the coin you bought on an exchange. Four things compound it. (1) Even for that customer the exit is gated: 100,000 USD minimum to redeem and a fee of "The greater of $1,000 or 0.1%", which is 1.0% at that minimum, not the advertised 0.1%. (2) A quarter of the reserve — US$47.1bn of gold, bitcoin, equities, corporate bonds, an unnamed US$13.45bn secured-loan book and a US$5.24bn "Other Investments" bucket defined only as whatever fits no other row — sits behind an equity buffer of US$4.11bn that just shrank 35% on a US$3.17bn half-year loss, with no custodian named anywhere and an unprovisioned New York class action disclosed on the same page. (3) The contract is construed as a British Virgin Islands contract even though the issuer redomiciled to El Salvador, so the register entry and the governing law point at different jurisdictions. (4) If you are a US Person you are contractually prohibited from holding it at all. The deepest market in crypto is not the same thing as a claim you can enforce.
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 USDT (Tether) (weight 30)
Redemption right exercised: 5/10 against 3/10 for USDT (Tether) (weight 28)
Reserve and assurance scope: 8/10 against 2/10 for USDT (Tether) (weight 24)
Ripple USD (RLUSD)Score 75The best-evidenced reserve in the pool sitting behind a much weaker holder claim: Deloitte examines CUSIP-level T-bills at a named custodian monthly, while the binding terms tell the holder they have no property interest in any of it, no fiduciary is owed to them, and they cannot redeem unless they become an institutional Customer under a contract Ripple does not publish.Strength: Reserve and assurance scope — 8/10Watch-out: 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.
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
USDT (Tether)2/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5/10 out of 10
Redemption right exercised
by 2 of 10weight 6.7 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
USDT (Tether)3/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5/10 out of 10
Reserve and assurance scope
by 6 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
USDT (Tether)2/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)8/10 out of 10
Seizure and upgrade authority
weight 4.3 of 86Tie
USDT (Tether)5/10 out of 10
Ripple USD (RLUSD)5/10 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
USDT (Tether)14/20Ripple USD (RLUSD)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
USDT (Tether)6.8/30Ripple USD (RLUSD)13.7/30
Ripple USD (RLUSD) leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
USDT (Tether)2.7/10Ripple USD (RLUSD)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
USDT (Tether)3.2/8Ripple USD (RLUSD)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
USDT (Tether)8.3/18Ripple USD (RLUSD)8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Ripple USD (RLUSD) unless the term USDT (Tether) leads on is the one you are buying.
USDT (Tether) 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% (USDT (Tether) 5/10, 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% (USDT (Tether) 2/10, Ripple USD (RLUSD) 5/10)
Scored by What is really behind it, and what did the third party actually opine on? · 24% (USDT (Tether) 2/10, 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% (USDT (Tether) 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 18 points above USDT (Tether), led by counterparty and insolvency rank, redemption right exercised, and reserve and assurance scope. Published scores, out of 100: USDT (Tether) 57 (rank 6 of 11 stablecoins), Ripple USD (RLUSD) 75 (rank 3 of 11).
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
USDT (Tether) #6 of 1157
Ripple USD (RLUSD) #3 of 1175