Turnkey provides powerful, low-level primitives for secure, programmable key management using TEEs (Trusted Execution Environments). Built by the team that created Coinbase Custody, Turnkey offers the fastest signing latency (50-100ms) in the market. However, because Turnkey is purely an infrastructure API, developers must build the entire wallet stack—including smart accounts, authentication, and UI—on top of it.
In 2026, Turnkey has expanded into AI agent wallets with policy-controlled signing. Clients include Spectral Labs, Legend Labs, and Alchemy (under the hood).
Why Developers Look for Turnkey Alternatives
- Build vs Buy: Turnkey is infrastructure—you build everything else (auth, smart accounts, gas, UI)
- No smart accounts: Must integrate third-party for ERC-4337 features
- Not self-hostable: Proprietary TEE infrastructure on AWS
- Time to market: 3-6 months to build a complete wallet stack on Turnkey
What are the Best Turnkey Alternatives?
The best Turnkey alternatives in 2026 are Openfort and Thirdweb.
- Openfort is the top professional choice, offering a full wallet stack with native smart account superpowers (gas sponsorship, policy engines) and open-source sovereignty
- Thirdweb offers an all-in-one platform with contracts, wallets, and payments bundled
Note: The competitive landscape has consolidated—Privy is now part of Stripe, Dynamic is part of Fireblocks, Web3Auth is part of MetaMask, and Sequence is part of Polygon Labs. For teams wanting to use a "complete product" alternative to Turnkey's infrastructure, these acquisitions matter.
1. Openfort
Openfort (that's us 👋) is an open-source wallet infrastructure solution that provides powerful wallet capabilities to abstract crypto complexity for both users and developers. Its platform allows developers to plug and play any signer (including OpenSigner) and contract they prefer, simplifying the whole vertical use case—from cross-app ecosystems and AI agents to fintech and DeFi.
Key Features
- If you're currently using Turnkey and hitting limits around development speed (building your own smart account infra), need a ready-to-use UI/SDK, or want a solution that handles gas sponsorship and session keys out of the box.
- Open source, Self-hosting option, Vendor neutrality: Openfort's signer infrastructure (OpenSigner) is open-source and comparable to Turnkey's security model but fully self-hostable. You own the stack. Learn more about how to avoid wallet vendor dependency.
- Concrete example: You want to launch a fintech app with embedded wallets next week. With Turnkey, you'd be building the auth and transaction construction logic. With Openfort, you plug in our SDK, configure your smart account policies, and go live.
Comparison Table: Openfort vs. Turnkey
| Feature | Openfort | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Product Level | Full Wallet Stack | Key Infrastructure API |
| Open Source | ✅ (OpenSigner) | ❌ (TEE) |
| Smart Accounts | ✅ Native & Modular | ❌ (Third-party) |
| Gas Sponsorship | ✅ N | ✅ |
| UI Components | ✅ Headless & UI Kits | React |
| Authentication | Any OIDC Provider | Passkeys / API |
| Session Keys | ✅ Native Support | ✅ Programmable |
| Self-Hostable (Embedded) | ✅ OpenSigner | ❌ No |
| Pricing | MAU + Usage | Usage (Per Signature) |
| Server Wallet | ✅ | ✅ |
| Permission Model | On-chain (session keys) | Off-chain (strong policy API) |
Scaling Considerations
- High User Volume, Low Transaction Volume: Openfort's free tier (1k MAUs and 500 transactions) is generous. Turnkey charges per wallet/signature, which can add up if you have many users creating wallets but not transacting often.
- Transaction Orchestration: Turnkey provides the keys, but you are responsible for building or buying the transaction infrastructure (bundling, gas sponsorship). Openfort orchestrates both the keys and the transactions, saving you from integrating a separate "smart account" vendor.
- Low User Volume, High Transaction Volume: Turnkey is efficient for high-volume automated signing (bots). Openfort is optimized for user-driven transactions, with gas sponsorship and batching features that save money on-chain, which Turnkey doesn't handle.
Why developers choose Openfort
Developers choose Openfort when they want Turnkey-level security but don't want to reinvent the wheel. They choose Openfort to get a complete, production-ready wallet stack rather than just a key management API.
2. Privy
Privy (acquired by Stripe) is the leading embedded wallet product. Privy uses similar TEE technology to Turnkey under the hood but packages it into a complete product.
Comparison Table: Privy vs. Turnkey
| Feature | Privy | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Consumer Product | Developer Infra |
| Integration | React SDK | Raw API and SDKs |
| Onboarding | ✅ Best-in-class | ✅ |
| Auth | Social / Email | Passkeys |
| Pricing | MAU-based | Usage-based |
Scaling Considerations
Privy is a finished product.
- Time to Market: Privy gets you live in hours. Turnkey takes weeks/months of integration.
Why developers choose Privy
To ship a consumer app fast without worrying about the low-level crypto engineering.
3. Dynamic
Dynamic (acquired by Fireblocks) offers a polished wallet adapter and embedded wallet. Dynamic is another "product-layer" alternative to Turnkey's "infra-layer".
Comparison Table: Dynamic vs. Turnkey
| Feature | Dynamic | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| UI | ✅ Polished Widget | ❌ None |
| Multi-chain | ✅ EVM, SVM | ✅ EVM, SVM |
| Auth | Socials + Wallets | Passkeys |
| Pricing | SaaS | Usage |
| Maintenance | Managed | Self-managed logic |
Scaling Considerations
Dynamic handles the UI complexity.
- Focus: Use Dynamic if you need a frontend. Use Turnkey if you are building a backend wallet system.
Why developers choose Dynamic
For the beautiful UI and ease of integration.
4. Web3Auth
Web3Auth (acquired by Metamask) uses MPC (Multi-Party Computation) instead of TEEs. It's the main alternative security model to Turnkey.
Comparison Table: Web3Auth vs. Turnkey
| Feature | Web3Auth | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Tech | MPC TSS | TEE (Enclaves) |
| Network | Distributed | Centralized (AWS) |
| Auth | Social Login | Passkeys / API |
| Cost | Affordable | Usage-based |
| Integration | SDK | API |
Scaling Considerations
Web3Auth is widely adopted.
- Security Model: Some prefer MPC (Web3Auth) over TEEs (Turnkey) for decentralization reasons.
Why developers choose Web3Auth
For robust social login support and MPC security.
5. Dfns
Dfns is a direct competitor to Turnkey in the "Wallet-as-a-Service" infrastructure space. Dfns uses MPC and focuses heavily on security and compliance for banks and fintechs.
Comparison Table: Dfns vs. Turnkey
| Feature | Dfns | Turnkey |
|---|---|---|
| Tech | MPC | TEE |
| Target | Banks / Fintech | Crypto Native |
| Compliance | ✅ High (SOC2, etc) | ✅ High |
| Deployment | Cloud / On-prem | Cloud |
| Pricing | Enterprise | Usage |
Scaling Considerations
Dfns is enterprise-focused.
- Compliance: Dfns often wins with traditional financial institutions requiring specific MPC guarantees.
Why developers choose Dfns
For institutional-grade MPC security and compliance.
Building In-House Wallet Product
Using Turnkey is essentially building in-house, just outsourcing the HSM/Enclave part.
Pros
- Control: You build the exact logic you want.
- Security: Turnkey handles the hardest part (key storage).
Cons
- Effort: You still have to build 80% of the wallet (transaction construction, parsing, gas, nonce management).
For a deeper dive into the trade-offs, check out our guide on building vs buying wallet infrastructure.
Conclusion
Turnkey is an incredible piece of infrastructure for teams that want to build everything from scratch.
However, if you want a complete wallet stack that gets you to market fast, with smart account superpowers and open-source flexibility, Openfort is the better choice.
Check out Openfort's documentation to learn more. See also: Web3Auth alternatives, Privy alternatives, Thirdweb alternatives.