Web3Auth has popularized the concept of "MPC wallets" and social login for crypto, making it possible for users to login with Google or Twitter. While it excels at this specific authentication layer, developers often find it lacking when they need a full-featured wallet solution (smart accounts, gas sponsorship, embedded UI) or when they want a simpler, less fragmented user experience.
If you are looking for alternatives that offer a more complete wallet stack, better developer experience, or open-source infrastructure, here are the top choices in 2025.
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 Web3Auth and hitting limits around the "fragmented" key management UX, want to offer gasless transactions (which Web3Auth doesn't handle natively), or need a full smart account infrastructure.
- Open source, Self-hosting option, Vendor neutrality: Openfort is fully open-source. Unlike Web3Auth's complex MPC network, Openfort's architecture allows you to own the signing infrastructure or use our managed service. Learn more about how to avoid wallet vendor dependency.
- Concrete example: You want to build a game where users login with Google (via Openfort's auth support) and immediately get a smart account that can batch transactions and have gas sponsored, all without the user seeing a "reconstruct key" loading screen.
Comparison Table: Openfort vs. Web3Auth
| Feature | Openfort | Web3Auth |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Full Wallet Stack | Auth & Key Mgmt |
| Open Source | ✅ (OpenSigner) | ⚠️ Partial (SDKs) |
| Smart Accounts | ✅ Native & Modular | ❌ (Requires 3rd party) |
| Gas Sponsorship | ✅ Native Paymaster | ❌ (Requires 3rd party) |
| Authentication | Any OIDC Provider | Socials / Custom |
| Key Tech | SSS / Smart Account | MPC TSS |
| Vendor Lock-in | ❌ None (Exportable) | ⚠️ High (MPC Network) |
| Self-Hostable | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
| Pricing | MAU + Usage | MAU-based |
Scaling Considerations
- High User Volume, Low Transaction Volume: Web3Auth is cheap for just auth ($69/mo). But if you need smart accounts (for gasless txs), you have to pay another provider (like ZeroDev or Biconomy) on top. Openfort bundles everything into one efficient pricing model with a generous free tier (1k MAUs and 500 transactions).
- Transaction Orchestration: Web3Auth handles the keys, but leaves the transaction layer to you. This often means integrating a second vendor for gas sponsorship and bundling. Openfort orchestrates the entire stack, giving you a single, unified platform for auth and transactions.
- Low User Volume, High Transaction Volume: Openfort's transaction-based pricing is ideal for active apps. Web3Auth doesn't help you with transaction costs or management, leaving you to build that infrastructure yourself.
Why developers choose Openfort
Developers choose Openfort when they realize auth is just the first step. They switch to Openfort to get a complete wallet solution—auth, storage, gas, and recovery—in one unified, open-source stack.
2. Privy
Privy is the gold standard for embedded wallet UX. Privy competes with Web3Auth on the "social login" front but offers a much more cohesive product experience.
Comparison Table: Privy vs. Web3Auth
| Feature | Privy | Web3Auth |
|---|---|---|
| UX | ✅ Seamless | ⚠️ Fragmented |
| Integration | React SDK | SDK |
| Reliability | ✅ High | ⚠️ Variable |
| Pricing | Premium ($299+) | Affordable ($69+) |
| Focus | Consumer Apps | Auth Infra |
Scaling Considerations
Privy is more expensive.
- UX: Privy's "invisible" wallet creation is superior to Web3Auth's often slow MPC initialization. You pay for the speed and polish.
Why developers choose Privy
For the absolute best user onboarding experience, regardless of cost.
3. Dynamic
Dynamic offers a beautiful wallet adapter that handles social login. Dynamic uses similar tech to Web3Auth but wraps it in a much better UI.
Comparison Table: Dynamic vs. Web3Auth
| Feature | Dynamic | Web3Auth |
|---|---|---|
| UI | ✅ Polished Widget | ❌ Build yourself |
| Multi-chain | ✅ EVM, SVM | ✅ EVM, SVM |
| Auth | Socials + Wallets | Socials |
| Pricing | SaaS | SaaS |
| Experience | All-in-one | Auth only |
Scaling Considerations
Dynamic saves frontend time.
- Dev Time: Using Web3Auth requires building your own login modal and flow. Dynamic gives you a production-ready one instantly.
Why developers choose Dynamic
To get Web3Auth-like features with a top-tier UI out of the box.
4. Magic (formerly Fortmatic)
Magic is the original "passwordless" wallet provider. Magic competes directly with Web3Auth for the "login with email" use case.
Comparison Table: Magic vs. Web3Auth
| Feature | Magic | Web3Auth |
|---|---|---|
| Tech | HSM / AWS KMS | MPC |
| Custody | Custodial (mostly) | Non-custodial |
| Integration | Very Simple | Moderate |
| Reliability | ✅ High | ⚠️ Moderate |
| Pricing | MAU-based | MAU-based |
Scaling Considerations
Magic is simpler but less flexible.
- Simplicity: Magic is the easiest way to get "email to wallet". Web3Auth offers more customization but is harder to implement.
Why developers choose Magic
For the simplest possible integration when they don't mind a more custodial model.
5. Turnkey
Turnkey offers a more modern, secure approach to key management than MPC.
Comparison Table: Turnkey vs. Web3Auth
| Feature | Turnkey | Web3Auth |
|---|---|---|
| Security | TEE (Enclaves) | MPC |
| Performance | ✅ Fast (< 100ms) | ⚠️ Slower |
| Flexibility | ✅ Unlimited | ⚠️ Auth-focused |
| Pricing | Usage | MAU |
| Type | Infra | Auth |
Scaling Considerations
Turnkey is faster and cheaper at scale.
- Performance: TEE signing is near-instant. MPC signing requires network roundtrips.
Why developers choose Turnkey
For high-performance signing and a cleaner security model.
6. Coinbase Wallet SDK (Smart Wallet)
Coinbase now offers "Smart Wallet" which uses passkeys for instant onboarding.
Comparison Table: Coinbase vs. Web3Auth
| Feature | Coinbase | Web3Auth |
|---|---|---|
| Auth | Passkeys | Socials |
| Cost | Free | Paid |
| Trust | Coinbase Brand | MPC Network |
| UX | Instant | Loading... |
Scaling Considerations
Coinbase is free.
- Cost: Hard to beat free. Passkeys are also safer than social logins (phishing resistant).
Why developers choose Coinbase
For a free, secure, and branded onboarding experience.
Building In-House Wallet Product
You can build your own "Web3Auth" using raw MPC libraries or TEEs.
Pros
- Sovereignty: No reliance on the Web3Auth network.
- Cost: No per-user fees.
Cons
- Difficulty: Implementing MPC securely is incredibly hard.
- Risk: If you lose the key shares, users lose funds.
For a deeper dive into the trade-offs, check out our guide on building vs buying wallet infrastructure.
FAQ
1. Is Web3Auth custodial? No, it uses MPC (Multi-Party Computation) so the key is split. They can't access user funds alone.
2. Can I use Openfort with Web3Auth? Yes. You can use Web3Auth to generate the key and Openfort to power the smart account. This is a common setup, though using Openfort's native auth is often simpler.
3. What is the difference between MPC and Smart Accounts? MPC is about how the key is secured (splitting it). Smart Accounts are about what the account can do (gasless, batching, recovery). Openfort gives you Smart Accounts. Web3Auth gives you MPC.
Conclusion
Web3Auth is a solid choice for social login.
However, if you want a complete wallet stack that goes beyond just auth to offer smart account features, gas sponsorship, and open-source sovereignty, Openfort is the modern choice.
Check out Openfort's documentation to learn more.