![Best Turnkey Alternatives [2025]](https://blog-cms.openfort.io/uploads/turnkey_alternatives_62f2422433.png)
In the world of web3 development, secure key management and wallet infrastructure are fundamental to building trustworthy applications. Turnkey offers an API-first, non-custodial key management platform featuring embedded wallets, passkeys, OTP authentication, and a powerful policy engine—all backed by secure enclaves and open-source SDKs. It's a robust choice for firms needing enterprise-grade infrastructure, but teams optimizing for self-sovereign wallets, composable UX, or fully open-source control may benefit from exploring alternatives. This article explores the top Turnkey alternatives developers are choosing in 2025.
1. Openfort
Openfort (that's us 👋) is an open-source wallet infrastructure and developer toolkit built for teams that want full control over their wallet experience—from embedded UI to smart accounts and session-based authentication.
Openfort is particularly popular among teams building ai agents applications and projects requiring complete infrastructure control. Unlike Turnkey's hosted approach, Openfort provides a fully self-hostable stack that can be deployed on your own infrastructure while maintaining enterprise-grade security.
Key Features
Compared to Turnkey, Openfort offers a more flexible and transparent approach to wallet development. Openfort's main product directions include:
Self-Custodial Smart Wallets: Native support for ERC-4337 and EIP-7702 account abstraction with full control over wallet logic and user experience.
Open Source & Self-Hostable: Complete MIT-licensed stack that you can audit, modify, and deploy on your own infrastructure without vendor dependencies.
Ecosystem SDK: Comprehensive UI components, provider injection, popup managers, and session orchestration for building cross-app wallet experiences.
Authentication Flexibility: Integrate with Auth0, Firebase, or any custom OIDC provider without platform restrictions, enabling true wallet authentication control.
Multi-Platform Support: Built for web3 applications across Unity, React Native, Telegram Mini-apps, and web environments.
How does Openfort compare to Turnkey?
Openfort and Turnkey both focus on developer-friendly wallet infrastructure, but they take fundamentally different approaches to security, hosting, and control.
| Feature | Openfort | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source Audit code, contribute to roadmap, and build integrations | ✅ Full stack | ❌ SDKs only, core infrastructure closed |
| Self-Hostable Host on your own infrastructure (if required) | ✅ Complete stack | ❌ Hosted by provider only |
| Embedded Wallet UI Kit Ready-to-use wallet interface components | ✅ | ✅ |
| Smart Accounts Support Account abstraction and programmable wallets | ✅ ERC-4337/EIP-7702 | ✅ Via API |
| Custom Auth Integration Bring your own authentication provider | ✅ Full flexibility | ✅ OIDC, Email, SMS, Passkeys |
| Policy Engine Governance and approval workflows | ✅ Via smart account logic | ✅ Granular policies via TEE |
| Session Management Persistent wallet sessions and state | ✅ Built-in | ✅ Via sessions |
| Smart Contract SDKs Pre-built contract libraries | ❌ | ❌ |
| Hardware Security Secure enclave support | ✅ Configurable (HSM support) | ✅ Native TEE/enclave |
| Infrastructure Control Full control over backend and data | ✅ | ❌ |
Why developers choose Openfort over Turnkey
Complete infrastructure sovereignty: Build and control your own wallet infrastructure without vendor lock-in or dependency on hosted services.
Full transparency and auditability: The entire stack is open source, allowing security audits and customization that's impossible with closed infrastructure.
Gaming and app-focused design: Created specifically for web3 wallet gaming, wallet consumer app, and experience-first applications.
Flexible security model: Choose your own security approach, from software-based solutions to enterprise HSM integration, without being locked into a specific enclave provider.
2. Privy
Privy is a wallet and authentication platform designed for fast integration with email, social login, and embedded wallets.
How does Privy compare to Turnkey?
Privy focuses on simplicity and rapid deployment, while Turnkey emphasizes enterprise security and policy management. Privy is easier to integrate but lacks the advanced security features and infrastructure control that Turnkey provides.
| Feature | Privy | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ❌ SDKs only |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Policy Engine | ❌ | ✅ |
| Secure Enclaves | ❌ | ✅ |
| Social Authentication | ✅ | ✅ |
| Enterprise Security | ❌ | ✅ |
| Consumer App Focus | ✅ | ❌ |
| Quick Integration | ✅ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Privy?
Rapid deployment: Fast integration for teams needing basic wallet onboarding without complex infrastructure setup.
Consumer-friendly UX: Optimized for smooth, Web2-style user experiences in consumer applications.
Simplified authentication: Streamlined social and email login flows without enterprise complexity.
3. Sequence
Sequence is a smart wallet platform offering multisig wallets optimized for games and consumer applications with built-in transaction batching.
How does Sequence compare to Turnkey?
Sequence provides more gaming-focused features than Turnkey, including smart contract libraries and Unity SDK support. However, it lacks Turnkey's enterprise security features and policy engine capabilities.
| Feature | Sequence | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ✅ Contracts and SDKs | ❌ SDKs only |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Smart Contract Library | ✅ | ❌ |
| Policy Engine | ❌ | ✅ |
| Gaming SDKs | ✅ Unity support | ❌ |
| Transaction Batching | ✅ | ✅ |
| Enterprise Security | ❌ | ✅ |
| Multisig Wallets | ✅ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Sequence?
Gaming-optimized: Built specifically for web3 wallet gaming with Unity SDK and game-specific features.
Smart contract libraries: Pre-built contracts for NFTs, tokens, and gaming mechanics.
Transaction efficiency: Advanced batching and gas optimization for better user experience.
4. Dynamic
Dynamic provides wallet connection and authentication with dashboard tools and Web2 integration capabilities.
How does Dynamic compare to Turnkey?
Dynamic offers better dashboard tools and Web2 integration than Turnkey, but lacks the enterprise security features, policy engine, and secure enclave technology that Turnkey provides.
| Feature | Dynamic | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ❌ SDKs only |
| Self-hostable | ❌ | ❌ |
| Dashboard Tools | ✅ Advanced | ✅ Basic |
| Policy Engine | ❌ | ✅ |
| Web2 Integration | ✅ | ✅ |
| Secure Enclaves | ❌ | ✅ |
| Enterprise Features | ❌ | ✅ |
| Social Authentication | ✅ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Dynamic?
Advanced dashboard: Comprehensive analytics and monitoring tools for wallet connections and user activity.
Web2 integration: Excellent support for traditional authentication patterns and user experience.
Developer experience: Clean APIs and well-designed integration flows.
5. Fireblocks
Fireblocks is an institutional-grade custody platform with MPC technology, policy controls, and enterprise compliance features.
How does Fireblocks compare to Turnkey?
Fireblocks offers more advanced institutional features than Turnkey, including sophisticated MPC custody and compliance tools. However, it's significantly more expensive and complex, making it unsuitable for most consumer applications.
| Feature | Fireblocks | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ❌ SDKs only |
| Institutional Features | ✅ Advanced | ✅ Basic |
| MPC Technology | ✅ | ❌ |
| Consumer App Suitability | ❌ | ✅ |
| Policy Engine | ✅ Advanced | ✅ |
| Cost | Very High | Moderate |
| Compliance Tools | ✅ Comprehensive | ✅ Basic |
| Enterprise Security | ✅ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Fireblocks?
Institutional-grade security: Military-level security with advanced MPC technology for large-scale operations.
Comprehensive compliance: Built-in tools for meeting financial regulations and audit requirements.
Advanced policy management: Sophisticated governance workflows for complex organizational structures.
6. Coinbase Wallet SDK
Coinbase Wallet SDK enables integration with existing Coinbase Wallets through mobile and web connection flows.
How does Coinbase Wallet SDK compare to Turnkey?
Coinbase Wallet SDK is much more limited than Turnkey, focusing only on connecting to existing Coinbase Wallets rather than providing comprehensive wallet infrastructure or key management capabilities.
| Feature | Coinbase Wallet SDK | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Open Source | ❌ | ❌ SDKs only |
| Embedded Wallet Creation | ❌ | ✅ |
| Key Management | ❌ | ✅ |
| Policy Engine | ❌ | ✅ |
| Brand Recognition | ✅ | ❌ |
| Custom Wallet Infrastructure | ❌ | ✅ |
| Secure Enclaves | ❌ | ✅ |
| Multi-Wallet Support | ❌ | ✅ |
Why do companies choose Coinbase Wallet SDK?
Brand trust: Leverages Coinbase's established reputation and large user base.
Simple integration: Straightforward connection to existing Coinbase Wallets without complex setup.
Mobile app linking: Seamless flow from Coinbase mobile app to web applications.
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 Turnkey 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 Openfort self-hostable like Turnkey claims to be? Yes—every component of Openfort (backend APIs, SDKs, UI) is MIT-licensed and can be deployed on your own infrastructure. Unlike Turnkey, which only provides open-source SDKs while keeping core infrastructure closed.
2. Does Openfort handle key security like Turnkey's secure enclaves? Openfort provides configurable security options including HSM integration for enterprise needs. While it doesn't use hardware enclaves by default, the open-source nature allows you to implement your preferred security model with full transparency.
3. Can I integrate my own authentication system with Openfort? Absolutely—Openfort supports any OIDC-compatible provider (Auth0, Firebase, custom systems), enabling scoped sessions and granular permission control without platform restrictions.
4. Which platform is better for embedded wallet UX: Openfort or Turnkey? For complete control and customization, Openfort is ideal with its embedded wallet SDK and ecosystem wallet capabilities. If you need an out-of-the-box secure stack with built-in policy rules and prefer hosted infrastructure, Turnkey is a strong alternative.
5. Can I migrate from Turnkey to Openfort? Yes, Openfort's flexible architecture and comprehensive documentation make migration straightforward. Our team can assist with the transition process and help you leverage the additional control and customization options.
Is Openfort right for you?
Here's our (short) sales pitch.
We're biased (obviously), but we think Openfort is the perfect Turnkey alternative if:
You're building web3 applications that require complete control over wallet infrastructure, user experience, and security implementation. With Openfort, you get enterprise-grade capabilities with full transparency and self-hosting options.
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, consumer apps, or innovative Web3 experiences that need custom wallet functionality beyond what hosted 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.