Wallet Performance Evaluation (2026)
Comprehensive analysis of leading wallets across performance and gas metrics.
Embedded Wallet Performance
Client-side embedded wallet SDK operations measured from method invocation to result availability
Overview
We compare 4 embedded wallet SDK providers across 3 core operations to surface practical differences in performance, user experience, and implementation complexity.
Each SDK was evaluated with default settings (no custom optimizations). We measured response times, API latency, and workflow friction to reflect how these tools perform in everyday use.
All tests were conducted from public, verifiable test applications, so you can inspect the implementations and reproduce the runs on your own. For the exact protocol and test code, see the Methodology section below.
Sign message
Lower is better
Time to sign a message using each provider's SDK. Measured from method call to signature availability.
Create wallet
Lower is better
Time to create a new embedded wallet. Excludes site-wide authentication flow.
Export wallet
Lower is better
Time to export a wallet. Excludes Privy and Dynamic because of popup UI.
Backend Wallet Performance
Server-side wallet signing benchmarks measured across multiple global regions
Overview
We measure server wallet signing latency across 5 global regions to evaluate performance characteristics for backend wallet implementations.
Each provider was benchmarked with 20 iterations per region, measuring the median signMessage latency for both EVM and Solana chains using the Slate benchmark.
All tests used default configurations to reflect real-world performance expectations for production deployments.
EVM signMessage Latency
Lower is better
Solana signMessage Latency
Lower is better
Wallet Gas Performance
Comprehensive gas usage comparison across different transaction types and smart wallet contracts.
Overview
We evaluated 10 leading smart account implementations across multiple transaction scenarios to measure real-world gas consumption. Each wallet was tested using standardized operations including ERC20 transfers, native ETH transfers, and complex DeFi interactions (Uniswap V2 swaps).
We followed the Ithaca benchmark for the gas measurements across different transaction types. The benchmark all tests were conducted on the same network conditions with identical transaction parameters. Gas measurements represent the total gas consumed by the UserOperation, including verification, execution, and any additional overhead from the account implementation.
The Openfort methodology extends the usability of the test by warming up the entrypoint, account and storage before running the tests.
Native Transfer
Uniswap V2 Swap
ERC20 Transfer
Sponsored in ETH (ERC20 Transfer)
Sponsored in ERC20 (ERC20 Transfer)
Gas Efficiency Leader
Delivers up to 15% cost savings for ERC20 transfers compared to competing implementations.
Native Transfer Champion
Optimized native ETH transfers, outperforming providers by11-18% and reducing transaction costs.
DeFi Performance
Excels in DeFi operations with 12% lower costsfor Uniswap V2 swaps vs modular implementations.
Cost Optimization
Delivers 15-30% gas cost reductions across all transaction types, maximizing user savings.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can't find your answer?
Each SDK was evaluated with default settings and no custom optimizations. We measured response times, API latency, and workflow friction from method invocation to result availability. All tests were conducted from public, verifiable test applications so you can inspect and reproduce the runs.
The embedded wallet benchmarks compare Openfort, Privy, Turnkey, and Dynamic across sign message, create wallet, and export wallet operations. The backend wallet benchmarks measure server-side signing latency across 5 global regions for EVM and Solana chains.
Openfort delivers up to 15% gas cost savings for ERC20 transfers and 11-18% lower costs for native ETH transfers compared to competing smart wallet implementations. For DeFi operations like Uniswap V2 swaps, Openfort achieves 12% lower costs versus modular implementations.
Smart wallet gas performance measures total gas consumed by a UserOperation, including verification, execution, and overhead from the account implementation. We evaluated 10 leading smart account implementations across native ETH transfers, ERC20 transfers, and Uniswap V2 swaps using the Ithaca benchmark methodology.
Benchmarks are updated periodically as providers release new SDK versions. The current benchmarks were last updated in January 2026. We re-run all tests under identical conditions to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons.
Yes. All embedded wallet tests were conducted from public, verifiable test applications. The smart wallet gas benchmarks follow the Ithaca benchmark methodology, and Openfort extends it with the 7702-Benchmark open-source repository for warmed-up entrypoint and storage testing.