![Best Dynamic Alternatives [2025]](https://blog-cms.openfort.io/uploads/dynamic_alternatives_d01d478975.png)
In the rapidly evolving world of web3 development, seamless wallet integration and user authentication are critical for application success. Dynamic is one of the leading wallet infrastructure providers used by teams looking to add embedded wallets and authentication into their applications. However, if you're evaluating wallet providers for your application or platform, there are strong alternatives worth considering—particularly if you're looking for open-source solutions, extensibility, and greater developer control. This article explores the top Dynamic alternatives developers are choosing in 2025.
1. Openfort
Openfort (that's us 👋) is an open-source wallet infrastructure stack and ecosystem SDK. Designed for developers building scalable applications—particularly in payments and ai agents—Openfort enables teams to spin up their own wallet toolkit, embedded wallets, and custom authentication flows, all while maintaining user sovereignty.
Openfort is not just a wallet SDK—it's a protocol, open-source stack, and comprehensive developer toolkit that gives teams complete control over their wallet infrastructure.
Key Features
Compared to Dynamic, Openfort offers greater flexibility and transparency by being fully open-source and extensible. Openfort's main product directions include:
-
Ecosystem SDK: Build your own wallet toolkit with
@openfort/ecosystem-js, including React hooks, EIP-1193 injection, and popup bridges for cross-app wallet experiences. -
Embedded Smart Wallets: Fully ERC-4337 compatible with support for EIP-7702, running on any EVM chain with native smart account capabilities.
-
Modular Authentication Layer: Use any auth provider—Auth0, Firebase, custom OIDC—and manage permissions across sessions with complete wallet authentication control.
-
Customizable UI: Plug-and-play frontend components with full UI override support for branded wallets and custom experiences.
-
Self-Host or Cloud: Deploy on your own infrastructure for privacy, sovereignty, and compliance with data residency requirements, or use Openfort Cloud for managed services.
How does Openfort compare to Dynamic?
Both Openfort and Dynamic focus on developer-friendly wallet infrastructure, but they take fundamentally different approaches to openness, control, and customization.
| Feature | Openfort | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source Audit code, contribute to roadmap, and build integrations | ✅ MIT-licensed, auditable, extensible | ❌ Not open-source |
| Self-Hostable Host on your own infrastructure (if required) | ✅ | ❌ |
| Custom Wallet SDK Build your own wallet SDK and ecosystem | ✅ Create your own SDK | ❌ Closed SDK only |
| Smart Wallet Support Account abstraction and programmable wallets | ✅ ERC-4337, EIP-7702 | ✅ Third party |
| Chain Agnostic Works across multiple blockchain networks | ✅ | ❌ |
| Pluggable Auth Bring your own authentication provider | ✅ Any OIDC provider | ❌ |
| UI Control Customize wallet interface and branding | ✅ Full override support | ❌ Limited customization |
| Gas Sponsorship Built-in transaction fee management | ✅ | ✅ Third party |
Why do teams choose Openfort over Dynamic?
Complete infrastructure sovereignty: Unlike Dynamic's closed-source approach, teams can audit, modify, and self-host the entire Openfort stack for maximum control over their wallet infrastructur.
Ecosystem-first development: Openfort is designed to let you build and scale Web3 apps and own your entire wallet ecosystem, not just integrate with a single provider's SDK.
True vendor independence: Zero vendor lock-in with MIT-licensed code, enabling teams to evolve their wallet infrastructure without platform constraints.
2. Privy
Privy is an embedded wallet and authentication solution that makes it easy to onboard users with Web2 credentials. It's particularly popular in consumer applications for its smooth onboarding experience.
How does Privy compare to Dynamic?
Privy and Dynamic are quite similar in their approach, both focusing on embedded wallets and Web2-to-Web3 onboarding. However, Privy offers a slightly more consumer-focused experience while Dynamic provides better developer dashboard tools.
| Feature | Privy | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ❌ |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Web2 Onboarding | ✅ | ✅ |
| Consumer App Focus | ✅ | ❌ |
| Developer Dashboard | ✅ | ✅ |
| Custom SDK Creation | ❌ | ❌ |
| Smart Wallet Support | ✅ | ✅ |
| UI Customization | ✅ Limited | ✅ Limited |
Why do companies choose Privy?
Excellent Web2-to-Web3 onboarding: Superior user experience for converting traditional users to Web3 applications.
Consumer app optimization: Built specifically for consumer-facing applications with smooth, familiar authentication flows.
Embedded and external wallet support: Flexible approach supporting both embedded wallets and connections to external wallet providers.
3. Sequence
Sequence offers wallet-as-a-service for game and consumer applications, with built-in account abstraction and Unity SDK support.
How does Sequence compare to Dynamic?
Sequence provides more gaming-focused features than Dynamic, including Unity SDK support and smart contract libraries. However, both platforms are closed-source and don't offer self-hosting options.
| Feature | Sequence | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ✅ Contracts and SDKs | ❌ |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Gaming SDKs | ✅ Unity support | ❌ |
| Smart Contract Library | ✅ | ❌ |
| Account Abstraction | ✅ | ✅ |
| Paymaster Infrastructure | ✅ | ✅ |
| Custom Wallet UI | ❌ Limited | ❌ Limited |
| Session Management | ✅ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Sequence?
Gaming-native features: Built specifically for web3 wallet gaming with Unity SDK and game-optimized features.
Smart contract libraries: Pre-built contracts for NFTs, tokens, and gaming mechanics that accelerate development.
Native account abstraction: Built-in AA support with paymaster infrastructure for seamless user experiences.
4. Thirdweb
Thirdweb is a comprehensive developer toolkit for smart contracts and wallets with a focus on simplifying Web3 development across the stack.
How does Thirdweb compare to Dynamic?
Thirdweb provides a broader development platform than Dynamic, including smart contract deployment and no-code tools. However, it's more opinionated in its abstractions and less flexible for highly customized wallet experiences.
| Feature | Thirdweb | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ✅ Partial | ❌ |
| Smart Contract Tools | ✅ Comprehensive | ❌ |
| Embedded Wallets | ✅ | ✅ |
| No-Code Options | ✅ | ❌ |
| Account Abstraction | ✅ | ✅ |
| Developer Dashboard | ✅ | ✅ Advanced |
| Wallet Customization | ❌ Limited | ❌ Limited |
| Contract Deployment | ✅ | ❌ |
Why do companies choose Thirdweb?
Comprehensive Web3 toolkit: All-in-one platform including smart contracts, wallets, and deployment tools.
Smart contract abstractions: Simplified contract development with pre-built templates and no-code deployment options.
Rapid prototyping: Fast setup for teams wanting to quickly deploy Web3 applications without extensive infrastructure setup.
5. Turnkey
Turnkey provides secure key management APIs for teams looking to build programmable wallets with enterprise-grade security.
How does Turnkey compare to Dynamic?
Turnkey focuses on the infrastructure layer of key management rather than user-facing experiences. While more secure for enterprise use cases, it requires significantly more development work to achieve the embedded wallet UX that Dynamic provides.
| Feature | Turnkey | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ SDKs only | ❌ |
| API-First Design | ✅ | ✅ |
| Key Management Focus | ✅ | ❌ |
| Ready-to-Use UI | ❌ | ✅ |
| Enterprise Security | ✅ | ✅ |
| Policy Engine | ✅ | ❌ |
| Embedded Wallet UI | ❌ | ✅ |
| Backend Integration | ✅ Extensive | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Turnkey?
API-first architecture: Backend-focused design for teams that want to build custom wallet experiences from the ground up.
Enterprise security model: Advanced cryptographic primitives and secure enclave technology for high-security applications.
Programmable wallet logic: Flexible key management APIs that enable custom custody and signing workflows.
6. Fireblocks
Fireblocks is an institutional-grade custody platform focused on security and compliance for enterprise and financial institution use cases.
How does Fireblocks compare to Dynamic?
Fireblocks operates in a completely different market segment than Dynamic, targeting institutional and enterprise customers rather than application developers building consumer-facing wallets.
| Feature | Fireblocks | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ❌ |
| Institutional Focus | ✅ | ❌ |
| Consumer App Suitability | ❌ | ✅ |
| Embedded Wallets | ❌ | ✅ |
| Compliance Tools | ✅ Comprehensive | ❌ |
| Cost | Very High | Moderate |
| Policy Engine | ✅ Advanced | ❌ |
| Developer Tools | ❌ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Fireblocks?
Institutional-grade security: Military-level security designed for financial institutions and large-scale operations.
Regulatory compliance: Comprehensive compliance tools for meeting financial regulations and audit requirements.
Advanced custody features: Sophisticated multi-signature workflows and policy management for institutional treasury operations.
7. Coinbase Wallet SDK
Coinbase Wallet SDK is built to integrate dApps with Coinbase Wallet via mobile linking and deep linking flows.
How does Coinbase Wallet SDK compare to Dynamic?
Coinbase Wallet SDK is much more limited than Dynamic, focusing only on connecting to existing Coinbase Wallets rather than providing embedded wallet infrastructure or custom authentication flows.
| Feature | Coinbase Wallet SDK | Dynamic |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ❌ |
| Embedded Wallet Creation | ❌ | ✅ |
| Existing Wallet Connection | ✅ Coinbase only | ✅ Multiple |
| Custom Authentication | ❌ | ✅ |
| Brand Recognition | ✅ | ❌ |
| Multi-Wallet Support | ❌ | ✅ |
| Custom UI | ❌ | ✅ |
| Mobile App Linking | ✅ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Coinbase Wallet SDK?
Brand trust and recognition: Leverages Coinbase's established reputation and large existing user base.
Simple Coinbase integration: Straightforward connection to existing Coinbase Wallets without complex infrastructure setup.
Mobile app linking: Seamless flow from Coinbase mobile app to web applications for existing users.
Building In-House Wallet Product
In the realm of wallet infrastructure, organizations often face the decision of choosing between off-the-shelf solutions like Openfort or Dynamic and developing an in-house wallet platform tailored to their specific needs. While this option can offer high customization, it comes with its own set of challenges and considerations.
Pros of Building an In-House Wallet Solution
Complete Control: The most significant advantage of an in-house solution is the ability to tailor it precisely to your web3 application needs. This customization can result in a wallet system that aligns perfectly with your existing workflows, brand, and user experience requirements.
No Vendor Lock-in: With an in-house system, you have complete control over your wallet infrastructure without dependency on external providers or their pricing changes.
Custom Features: You can build specific features for your use case, whether it's web3 wallet gaming, web3 wallet DeFi, or web3 wallet AI agents.
Cons of Building an In-House Wallet Solution
Resource-Intensive Development: Developing a wallet solution in-house requires significant time investment in design, development, and testing. This process can divert valuable engineering resources away from your core product development.
Security Expertise Requirement: Building a secure wallet system requires deep cryptographic and blockchain security expertise. This includes not just the initial build but also ongoing threat assessment and response capabilities.
Ongoing Maintenance and Support: Post-deployment, the system will require continuous maintenance to ensure security, performance, and compatibility with evolving blockchain standards. This includes regular updates, patches, and security audits.
Compliance and Audit Challenges: Custom-built wallet systems can face heightened scrutiny from auditors and regulators. Ensuring compliance with evolving regulations can be more challenging compared to using established commercial solutions.
Scalability Concerns: As your application grows, the in-house wallet solution might need significant re-engineering to scale effectively, which can be a resource-intensive process.
Time to Market: Building a production-ready wallet infrastructure can take months or years, potentially delaying your core product launch.
FAQ
1. Why would I use Openfort over Dynamic? Openfort is open-source and lets you build your own wallet toolkit and ecosystem SDK. If you want full control over authentication, UI, and wallet infrastructure—or prefer to self-host—Openfort provides complete transparency and customization that Dynamic cannot match.
2. Can I migrate from Dynamic to Openfort? Yes, Openfort provides comprehensive migration guides and a modular SDK design so you can gradually replace pieces of your stack. Our team can assist with the transition process.
3. Is Openfort production-ready for enterprise applications? Yes. Openfort supports ERC-4337, EIP-7702, and powers real-world gaming and consumer applications today. It's designed to scale Web3 applications from startup to enterprise.
4. Does Openfort support email and social login like Dynamic? Yes—Openfort is auth-agnostic and supports any OIDC provider. You can easily integrate Auth0, Firebase, or your own authentication system with complete wallet authentication control.
5. What's the main advantage of Openfort's ecosystem approach? Unlike single-purpose SDKs, Openfort enables you to build cross-app wallet experiences and create your own wallet ecosystem that works across multiple applications and platforms.
Is Openfort right for you?
Here's our (short) sales pitch.
We're biased (obviously), but we think Openfort is the perfect Dynamic alternative if:
You're building Web3 applications that require complete control over wallet infrastructure, user experience, and authentication flows. With Openfort, you get enterprise-grade capabilities with full transparency and the ability to build your own wallet ecosystem.
You value open-source development and want to avoid vendor lock-in. Our entire wallet stack is MIT-licensed with comprehensive documentation and active community support.
You're developing gaming applications, innovative consumer experiences, or cutting-edge Web3 solutions that need custom wallet functionality beyond what closed platforms provide.
Check out our developer documentation and API reference to learn more.
If you have any questions or want to schedule a product demo, you can get started with our team of experts.