Wallet Performance Evaluation (2025)

Comprehensive analysis of leading wallets across performance and gas metrics.


Embedded Wallet Performance

Core 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

Time to sign a message using each provider's SDK. Measured from method call to signature availability.

Create wallet

Time to create a new embedded wallet. Excludes site-wide authentication flow.

Export wallet

Time to export a wallet. Excludes Privy and Dynamic because of popup UI.

Wallet Gas Costs

Comprehensive gas usage comparison across different transaction types and 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 V3 swaps).

Two distinct testing methodologies were applied. The standard benchmark follows Alchemy's AA benchmarks protocol, measuring gas usage for common operations. The alternative methodology extends this by testing different payment models: user-paid transactions, paymaster-sponsored transactions in ETH, and paymaster-sponsored transactions with ERC20 token payments.

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.

ERC20 Transfer

139k
Openfort
175k
Simple
175k
Alchemy L
183k
Coinbase
215k
Safe

Native Transfer

140k
Openfort
151k
Simple
151k
Alchemy
159k
Coinbase
191k
Safe
176k
ZeroDev

Uniswap V3 Swap

179k
Openfort
188k
Simple
189k
Alchemy
195k
Coinbase
208k
Safe
220k
ZeroDev

User Pays in ETH

141k
Openfort
172k
ERC-7579
178k
Simple
198k
Safe
207k
ZeroDev

Paymaster Pays in ETH

141k
Openfort
170k
ERC-7579
175k
Simple
192k
Safe
204k
ZeroDev

Paymaster Pays in ERC20

188k
Openfort
217k
ERC-7579
222k
Simple
239k
Safe
253k
ZeroDev

Most Efficient

Openfort accounts are the most efficient accounts using permissionless 4337 infrastructure, achieving up to 45% gas savings compared to other implementations.

Performance Leader

Consistently lowest gas consumption across all operations, using just 141,475 gas for basic operations compared to 207,071 gas for competitors.

Optimized Design

Our monolithic architecture shows 20-30% better gas efficiency than modular ERC-7579 implementations, without compromising on functionality.

Cost Effective

Optimized for both user-paid and paymaster-sponsored transactions, with up to 70% lower costs than traditional smart accounts.



Sign up for Openfort