![Best MetaMask SDK Alternatives [2025]](https://blog-cms.openfort.io/uploads/metamask_alternatives_eec1345443.png)
In the world of web3 development, connecting applications to user wallets is fundamental to creating seamless user experiences. The MetaMask SDK is a powerful toolkit that wraps MetaMask's Wallet API into a cross-platform library. It offers secure, seamless connections for desktop (extension + QR) and mobile (deep links), supports JavaScript, React Native, iOS, Android, Unity, and includes features like batch requests, read-only RPC via Infura, and session persistence.
However, if you're building a fully-embedded, self-custodial wallet infrastructure experience—with deeper developer control, smart-wallet flows, and infrastructure sovereignty—there are compelling alternatives worth considering. This article explores the top MetaMask SDK alternatives developers are choosing in 2025.
1. Openfort
Openfort (that's us 👋) is an open-source wallet infrastructure SDK that gives developers complete control over their wallet experience. Unlike MetaMask SDK's focus on connecting to existing MetaMask wallets, Openfort enables teams to build their own embedded wallets and wallet ecosystem from the ground up.
Openfort is particularly popular among teams building web3 wallet gaming applications and projects requiring complete control over wallet UX and infrastructure. With its comprehensive developer toolkit, Openfort enables teams to create fully customizable wallet experiences without depending on external wallet providers.
Key Features
Compared to MetaMask SDK, Openfort provides a fundamentally different approach to wallet integration—building embedded experiences rather than connecting to external wallets. Openfort's main product directions include:
Smart Wallets & Account Abstraction: Native support for ERC-4337 and EIP-7702 smart accounts with programmable wallet logic and session management.
Open Source Stack: Complete MIT-licensed backend, SDKs, and UI components that are self-hostable and fully extensible without vendor lock-in.
Ecosystem SDK: Provider injection, popup orchestration, session management with support for React, React Native, Unity, and cross-app wallet experiences.
Authentication Freedom: Compatible with Auth0, Firebase, or any custom OIDC provider, giving you complete control over user wallet authentication.
Multi-Platform Support: Unity WebGL, mobile, Telegram mini-apps, and web environments with consistent API across platforms.
How does Openfort compare to MetaMask SDK?
While both provide wallet connectivity solutions, they serve fundamentally different use cases. MetaMask SDK connects to existing MetaMask wallets, while Openfort enables building custom embedded wallet experiences.
| Feature | Openfort | MetaMask SDK |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source Audit code, contribute to roadmap, and build integrations | ✅ Backend + SDK + UI | ✅ SDKs and core libraries |
| Self-hostable Infrastructure Host on your own infrastructure (if required) | ✅ Full stack | ❌ Relies on MetaMask servers |
| Smart Wallet Support Account abstraction and programmable wallets | ✅ ERC-4337, EIP-7702 smart accounts | ✅ EIP-7702 (basic) |
| Popup & Session Management Advanced session handling and state management | ✅ Built-in session orchestration | ❌ Relies on browser extension |
| Embedded Wallet Creation Build wallets directly in your application | ✅ Web, React Native, Unity, Telegram | ❌ Extension connection only |
| Custom Auth Integration Bring your own authentication provider | ✅ Any OIDC provider | ❌ Fixed connection via MetaMask |
| Batch & Read-only RPC Advanced transaction and RPC capabilities | ✅ | ✅ Through Infura integration |
| Infrastructure Control Full control over backend and data | ✅ | ❌ |
| User Base Existing wallet users vs custom experiences | Custom wallet experiences | Existing MetaMask users |
Why developers choose Openfort over MetaMask SDK
Complete wallet UX control: Build embedded wallets with custom signing flows, session management, and user experience without depending on external wallet installations.
Infrastructure sovereignty: Take full ownership of backend APIs and user data with self-hostable infrastructure, eliminating dependency on third-party services.
Future-proof architecture: Smart contract accounts with account abstraction built-in, enabling advanced features like session keys, transaction batching, and gasless experiences.
Platform flexibility: Create consistent wallet experiences across web3 wallet gaming, wallet consumer app, and web3 applications without browser extension requirements.
2. Privy
Privy is an embedded wallet and authentication platform designed for fast onboarding with social and email login capabilities.
How does Privy compare to MetaMask SDK?
Privy and MetaMask SDK serve different purposes in the wallet connectivity ecosystem. Privy focuses on embedded wallet creation and Web2-style onboarding, while MetaMask SDK connects to existing MetaMask installations.
| Feature | Privy | MetaMask SDK |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ✅ SDKs only |
| Embedded Wallet Creation | ✅ | ❌ |
| Existing Wallet Connection | ✅ | ✅ MetaMask only |
| Social Authentication | ✅ | ❌ |
| Smart Wallet Support | ❌ | ✅ Basic |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Multi-Platform Support | ✅ | ✅ |
| Session Persistence | ✅ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Privy?
Fast embedded onboarding: Rapid integration for teams wanting embedded wallets with social and email login without complex infrastructure setup.
Consumer-friendly UX: Smooth, Web2-style user experience that reduces friction for new crypto users.
Developer-friendly components: Pre-built UI components and authentication flows that work out of the box.
3. Dynamic
Dynamic provides wallet connection and authentication with excellent dashboard tools and support for both embedded and external wallets.
How does Dynamic compare to MetaMask SDK?
Dynamic offers a broader approach than MetaMask SDK, supporting both embedded wallet creation and connections to multiple external wallet providers, not just MetaMask.
| Feature | Dynamic | MetaMask SDK |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ✅ SDKs only |
| Multi-Wallet Support | ✅ Multiple providers | ❌ MetaMask only |
| Embedded Wallets | ✅ | ❌ |
| Dashboard Tools | ✅ Advanced | ❌ |
| Account Abstraction | ✅ | ✅ Basic |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Social Authentication | ✅ | ❌ |
| Custom Branding | ✅ Limited | ❌ |
Why do companies choose Dynamic?
Excellent dashboard and monitoring: Advanced analytics and monitoring tools for wallet connections and user activity across multiple wallet providers.
Multi-wallet strategy: Support for connecting to various wallet providers beyond just MetaMask, giving users more choice.
Embedded and external wallet support: Flexible approach supporting both embedded wallet creation and external wallet connections.
4. Thirdweb
Thirdweb offers a comprehensive web3 development suite including smart contracts, wallet connections, and deployment tools.
How does Thirdweb compare to MetaMask SDK?
Thirdweb provides a much broader development platform than MetaMask SDK, including smart contract deployment, wallet infrastructure, and development tools beyond just wallet connectivity.
| Feature | Thirdweb | MetaMask SDK |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ✅ Partial | ✅ SDKs only |
| Smart Contract Tools | ✅ Comprehensive | ❌ |
| Wallet Connectivity | ✅ Multi-wallet | ✅ MetaMask only |
| Embedded Wallets | ✅ | ❌ |
| Contract Deployment | ✅ | ❌ |
| No-Code Options | ✅ | ❌ |
| Unity Support | ✅ | ✅ |
| Infrastructure Focus | Limited | ❌ |
Why do companies choose Thirdweb?
Comprehensive development suite: All-in-one platform including smart contracts (tokens, NFTs, drops), wallet infrastructure, and deployment tools.
Template-based development: Pre-built smart contract templates and deployment tools for rapid prototyping and development.
Multi-wallet connectivity: Support for connecting to various wallet providers with unified API, not limited to MetaMask.
5. Sequence
Sequence offers Unity-ready embedded wallets with account abstraction, optimized for gaming and consumer applications.
How does Sequence compare to MetaMask SDK?
Sequence focuses on embedded smart wallets with gaming-specific features, while MetaMask SDK provides connectivity to existing MetaMask wallets. They serve different use cases in the wallet ecosystem.
| Feature | Sequence | MetaMask SDK |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ✅ Contracts and SDKs | ✅ SDKs only |
| Embedded Wallets | ✅ | ❌ |
| Gaming SDKs | ✅ Unity support | ✅ Unity support |
| Account Abstraction | ✅ Native | ✅ Basic |
| Transaction Batching | ✅ | ✅ |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Multisig Support | ✅ | ❌ |
| Smart Contract Library | ✅ | ❌ |
Why do companies choose Sequence?
Gaming-optimized features: Built specifically for web3 wallet gaming with Unity SDK support and game-specific wallet features.
Prebuilt smart wallets: Multisig wallets with transaction batching and account abstraction built-in for seamless user experiences.
Developer tooling: Comprehensive SDK and tools designed for game developers and consumer app builders.
6. Turnkey
Turnkey provides secure enclave-backed key management with policy engines, supporting embedded wallets with passkeys and authentication flows.
How does Turnkey compare to MetaMask SDK?
Turnkey focuses on secure key management infrastructure for building custom wallets, while MetaMask SDK provides connectivity to existing MetaMask wallets. Turnkey requires more development work but offers enterprise-grade security.
| Feature | Turnkey | MetaMask SDK |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ SDKs only | ✅ SDKs only |
| Key Management Focus | ✅ Enterprise-grade | ❌ |
| Embedded Wallets | ✅ | ❌ |
| Policy Engine | ✅ | ❌ |
| Secure Enclaves | ✅ | ❌ |
| Ready-to-Use UI | ✅ Limited | ❌ |
| Existing Wallet Connection | ❌ | ✅ |
| Backend Infrastructure | ✅ Hosted | ❌ Closed |
Why do companies choose Turnkey?
Enterprise security model: Secure enclave-backed key management with advanced cryptographic primitives for high-security applications.
Policy engine support: Granular policy controls and approval workflows for institutional and enterprise use cases.
API-first design: Flexible backend APIs for building custom wallet experiences with enterprise-grade security requirements.
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 MetaMask SDK 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. Is MetaMask SDK fully open source? The SDK itself is open source (MIT license) and available on npm/GitHub, but the backend infrastructure and mobile services remain closed and rely on MetaMask's servers.
2. Does MetaMask SDK support smart-wallet accounts like Openfort? MetaMask SDK supports basic EIP-7702 functionality and transaction batching, but does not provide the comprehensive ERC-4337 smart account flows, session management, and account abstraction features that Openfort offers.
3. Can I host my own backend infrastructure with MetaMask SDK? No—the MetaMask SDK relies on MetaMask's closed servers for communications like deep links, QR code generation, and mobile session management. You cannot self-host this backend infrastructure.
4. When should I choose MetaMask SDK vs Openfort? Use MetaMask SDK if you want fast, reliable access to existing MetaMask users with minimal development overhead. Choose Openfort when you need embedded wallets, account abstraction, customizable UX, full infrastructure control, or want to build your own wallet ecosystem.
5. Does Openfort work with existing MetaMask users? Yes, Openfort supports connecting to existing external wallets including MetaMask, while also enabling you to build embedded wallet experiences for users who prefer in-app wallets.
Is Openfort right for you?
Here's our (short) sales pitch.
We're biased (obviously), but we think Openfort is the perfect MetaMask SDK alternative if:
You're building web3 applications that need embedded wallet experiences rather than depending on users having MetaMask installed. With Openfort, you get complete control over wallet UX, smart account infrastructure, and the ability to create cross-app wallet experiences.
You value infrastructure sovereignty and want to avoid dependency on third-party services. Our entire wallet stack is MIT-licensed and self-hostable with comprehensive documentation.
You're developing gaming applications, consumer experiences, or innovative Web3 solutions that require custom wallet functionality beyond basic MetaMask connectivity.
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.