Argent (now "Ready"): software wallets rating breakdown
The best-audited smart-contract account here — ChainSecurity, Consensys Diligence and Nethermind, with dated reports in the repository — and social recovery instead of a seed phrase, which genuinely helps people who would otherwise lose everything to a lost piece of paper.
The best-audited smart-contract account here — ChainSecurity, Consensys Diligence and Nethermind, with dated reports in the repository — and social recovery instead of a seed phrase, which genuinely helps people who would otherwise lose everything to a lost piece of paper.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Security model and open code | — | 30% | 5 | 8 | 11 of 17 | -0.90 |
| Privacy | — | 20% | 3 | 5 | 15 of 17 | -0.40 |
| Transaction transparency | — | 15% | 4 | 5 | 12 of 17 | -0.15 |
| Swap cost | — | 15% | 2 | 5 | 12 of 17 | -0.45 |
| Recovery and portability | — | 10% | 3 | 9 | 16 of 17 | -0.60 |
| Networks | — | 10% | 5 | 7 | 12 of 17 | -0.20 |
Measured 14 July 2026 · weights and method · decided by security model and open code, worth -0.90 points against the median
Security model and open code: 5/10
Non-custodial, MPC or custodial — and where the key actually sits on your device. Then the licence, as it stands today rather than as folklore remembers it: several well-known wallets have quietly moved to source-available terms that are not open source. Audits count only when the firm is named and the report is public.
Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 11th of 17 among software wallets on this criterion. At a 30% weight that is 0.90 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 2.
Privacy: 3/10
The most underrated question in this category: which RPC endpoint does the wallet talk to out of the box, and who owns it? If the default RPC is operated by the wallet’s own vendor, that vendor sees the IP address behind every balance check and every transaction, and can link it to your addresses. We read the default configuration and the privacy policy, and we quote the clause. Can you point it at your own node, and how hard is it?
Scored 3 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 15th of 17 among software wallets on this criterion. At a 20% weight that is 0.40 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 2.
Transaction transparency: 4/10
Does the wallet simulate the transaction and show you the actual outcome before you sign it, and does it warn you about known drainer contracts? The same question as clear signing on a hardware device, asked of software.
Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 12th of 17 among software wallets on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is 0.15 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 3.
Swap cost: 2/10
The built-in swap is how most free wallets are paid. We record the published service fee — and when a wallet does not publish one at all while still taking a cut of the spread, that silence is the finding and it is scored as one.
Scored 2 of 10 against a category median of 5, which places it 12th of 17 among software wallets on this criterion. At a 15% weight that is 0.45 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Recovery and portability: 3/10
Standard BIP39, and whether the seed restores in another wallet. A wallet you cannot leave is a custodian with extra steps.
Scored 3 of 10 against a category median of 9, which places it 16th of 17 among software wallets on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.60 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 3.
Networks: 5/10
Which chains genuinely work, from the wallet’s own documentation.
Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 12th of 17 among software wallets on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.20 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 2.
Other measurements
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Security model and open code | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | Phantom | 2 | Behind by 3 on security model and open code. |
| 15 | Coinbase Wallet (Base App) | 2 | Behind by 3 on security model and open code. |
| 17 | Exodus | 2 | Behind by 3 on security model and open code. |
Questions about this score
How does social recovery work?
+
You nominate guardians — other people or devices — who can collectively authorise recovery of your account if you lose access. It removes the single point of failure that a seed phrase creates, and it replaces it with a dependency on the guardians you picked being reachable, willing and honest when you need them.
Is a smart-contract wallet riskier than a normal one?
+
It has a risk a keypair does not: the contract itself could contain a flaw. Argent's answer is the most thorough audit record in this rating, with dated reports published where you can read them. What you buy for that risk is recovery, spending limits and shared control that a plain keypair cannot offer.