How We Score Desktop Wallets
Desktop wallets sit in a funny middle ground, more capable than mobile apps, yet more exposed than hardware wallets. They come in many flavours from full desktop clients like Exodus or Coinomi, Bitcoin-only specialists like Sparrow and Electrum, browser extensions such as MetaMask or Trust Wallet, and next-gen seedless options like Zengo.
Trying to rate them all the same way misses what really matters, how they handle your keys, how transparent the code is, and whether the team behind them has earned the community’s trust.
That’s why Be Crypto Safe built a dedicated desktop benchmark, separate from our mobile scoring model. The goal is simple: judge wallets by proof of trust, not popularity.
Our Purpose
The Be Crypto Safe Benchmark exists to make wallet safety measurable. It’s not about who markets best or who has the slickest design. It’s about how the product behaves in the real world, its transparency, resilience, and track record.
Our team of crypto-security specialists and researchers reviews each wallet through an evidence-based framework. We don’t take vendor input or paid placements. Every rating is grounded in verifiable data: code audits, GitHub activity, incident history, community sentiment, and review density.
If it can’t be verified, it doesn’t make the cut.
The Be Crypto Safe Benchmark
Here’s the quick view. If you only read one thing, make it this table:
Why These Weights Matter
Each wallet starts at zero and earns points through verifiable performance, documentation, or community evidence, not promises or screenshots.
For Bitcoin-only wallets, where staking doesn’t apply, the weighting is redistributed across the other seven categories through a Consensus Context Adjustment.
Why Desktop Wallets Are a Different Beast
A desktop wallet doesn’t live in a sandbox like a mobile app. It shares the same operating system as your browser, downloads, and documents. This means malware, clipboard hijackers, and phishing sites can all pose a risk.
It’s also where transparency diverges:
- Mobile wallets rely on app-store reviews and user trust.
- Desktop wallets can be verified through open code, GitHub commits, and reproducible builds.
We lean heavily toward verifiable transparency rather than popularity scores. A wallet with few public reviews but a strong open-source record will outrank one with millions of installs but weak disclosure.
Weighting That Reflects Reality
Each category plays a specific role:
-
Backup & Recovery: How easily users can restore access and test that it works.
-
Security: Whether the software is open, audited, and patched promptly.
-
Privacy & Data: How much information leaks through network defaults or third-party services.
-
Trust Signals: The project’s transparency, responsiveness, and real-world reputation.
-
UI/UX & Support: Design quality, accessibility, and customer help when things go wrong.
-
Supported Assets & Interoperability: Breadth of supported chains and compatibility with hardware wallets.
-
Fees & Swaps: Visibility of in-wallet charges and spreads.
- Staking & Yield: Clarity and safety of passive-income features for proof-of-stake assets.
No single factor dominates the score; balance matters. A wallet that nails UX but hides its code won’t outrank one that is transparent but less polished.
The Problem with Public Ratings
Scroll through TrustPilot or app stores and you’ll see extremes, either five-star raves or one-star rants. Neither tells the full story.
Public reviews tend to skew toward emotion rather than evidence. A wallet with millions of users will always attract more complaints than a niche Bitcoin client, regardless of code quality.
Our benchmark smooths these extremes using a weighted approach:
- TrustPilot data is only counted where volume exceeds 500 verified entries.
- GitHub and extension-store metrics fill the gap when user reviews are thin.
- Community sentiment (Reddit, X, forums) provides qualitative context.
The combined result is a normalised trust model that rewards verifiable quality, not marketing reach.
Open Source as a Trust Signal
Transparency is the foundation of trust. If users can inspect or verify the build, the wallet earns a higher baseline rating.
Open-source code, reproducible builds, and clear release notes are positive indicators. Projects that limit visibility, delay audits, or hide core components lose ground.
The benchmark doesn’t reward perfection, it rewards openness. A wallet can admit flaws and still score strongly if it proves a commitment to fixing them.
Handling Incidents and Breaches
A single exploit doesn’t automatically disqualify a wallet. What matters is response maturity.
We look for timely disclosure, transparent root-cause analysis, and evidence of fixes. Silence or deflection results in a long-term penalty.
Wallet teams that publish technical post-mortems and improve their code base often recover lost trust over time.
Comparing Very Different Wallet Types
Desktop wallets aren’t a single species, they fall into clear families:
Each type is scored under the same 100-point framework but interpreted within context.
For example, a Bitcoin wallet isn’t marked down for lacking staking; a browser extension isn’t penalised for focusing on Web3. The benchmark respects design intent while holding every wallet to a consistent transparency and safety standard.
Data Validation
To keep the benchmark grounded in fact, we cross-check multiple data sources:
-
TrustPilot – used only when sample size exceeds reliability thresholds.
-
Extension Stores – verified download counts and update logs.
-
GitHub – release cadence, commit frequency, and reproducible build status.
-
Public Incidents – confirmed through independent security researchers and reputable outlets.
- Community Presence – long-term activity across Telegram, Reddit, X, and forums.
If a metric can’t be verified independently, it’s excluded. A missing number is safer than a guessed one.
Continuous Review and Normalisation
Benchmarks are updated twice a year. Each review cycle re-evaluates:
- Version history and patch frequency
- Any new security disclosures
- Community sentiment shifts
- Development activity and audit progress
Scores can rise when projects add open-source coverage or hardware support, and fall when updates stall or communication lapses.
Our methodology evolves as the ecosystem matures, so it’s not a static report card.
How to Read Our Scores
A Be Crypto Safe score is a trust indicator, not a guarantee.
-
High-Scoring Wallets show transparency, stable code, and strong community reputation.
- Lower-Scoring Wallets may still be safe for day-to-day use but carry higher uncertainty around disclosure or support.
We encourage readers to pair our benchmark with their own research, verify downloads, and test recovery before depositing meaningful amounts.
The Final Buzz
Security only improves when the scoring system itself is transparent. By sharing our full methodology, we help both users and developers understand what earns trust, and what erodes it.
This guide is freely available so anyone can see how scores are derived. The detailed results and rankings, however, are reserved for members who want the complete dataset, category breakdowns, and interpretive analysis.
Quick Steps to Stay Safe
- Verify your wallet download source, never through emails, ads or social links.
- Test your backup on a clean device.
- Keep your operating system and wallet updated.
- Use a hardware wallet or multi-sig for significant balances.
These basics sound simple, but they prevent most real-world losses.
Where to Next
Now you’ve seen how we score desktop wallets, the categories, weights, and data standards behind every number, you can access the full rankings of the leading desktop wallets, category-by-category breakdowns, and analysis inside the members area: Desktop Wallet Benchmark Results 2025 – Full Rankings & Analysis
Stay safe. Stay smart. Be Crypto Safe.
Education is your best defence. Unlock member-only guides, checklists, and tools designed to protect your crypto, stay safe and be compliant.
