How we test hot crypto wallets

At GNcrypto, we put transparency first when evaluating hot cryptocurrency wallets. Our reviews are based on hands-on testing and thorough analysis across all key dimensions that matter for self-custody and daily crypto use.

What We Test

We rate hot wallets on seven criteria that matter when you’re actually storing, sending, and using crypto. Each wallet gets a score from 1.0 to 5.0 based on weighted performance across security, asset support, transaction costs, and user experience.

Our focus: Can you store assets safely, transact efficiently, and access DeFi without exposing your keys to unnecessary risk?

We don’t audit wallet code or guarantee security against all attack vectors. These scores reflect usability, feature completeness, and observable security practices – not absolute protection from exploits.

How We Score Wallets

Each criterion gets rated on a 5-point scale:

5/5 – Best in class (Ledger Live-level security, MetaMask-level DeFi integration)
4/5 – Above average, works well for most users
3/5 – Acceptable with trade-offs (limited chains, basic security, clunky UX)
2/5 – Serious problems (poor backup, limited assets, security incidents)
1/5 – Broken or unsafe (no seed backup, frequent hacks, closed-source with custody)

Why We Use Weighted Scores

Not all criteria carry equal weight. Security matters more than UI polish. Asset support matters more than advanced DeFi features.

Our weighting system:

Tier 1 – Critical (60%)

These determine whether you can use the wallet safely and practically:

• Security & Key Management – 25%
• Supported Assets & Networks – 20%
• Transaction Costs & Speed – 15%

Tier 2 – Quality (25%)

These affect daily usability and functionality:

• User Experience & Interface – 15%
• DeFi & dApp Integration – 10%

Tier 3 – Support & Recovery (15%)

Important for edge cases and long-term use:

• Recovery & Backup Systems – 10%
• Customer Support & Documentation – 5%

Example: A wallet with perfect DeFi integration (5/5) but poor seed phrase backup (2/5) scores poorly overall. A wallet with strong security (5/5) and broad asset support (5/5) but a clunky interface (3/5) still ranks high.

The 7 Criteria

1. Security & Key Management (25% weight)

What we check:

• Private key storage model (local device, encrypted cloud, MPC)
• Authentication options (PIN, password, biometrics, 2FA)
• Seed phrase generation and backup process
• Transaction signing security (hardware wallet integration, confirmation screens)
• Open-source code availability and audit history
• Past security incidents and response

Why it matters:

A hot wallet with weak key management is a single phishing link away from total loss. If your seed phrase isn’t encrypted or your app doesn’t require confirmation for transactions, your funds are at risk.

How we test:

We generate new wallets, document the seed phrase backup flow, test authentication methods, attempt to export private keys, check if the wallet prompts for confirmation before signing transactions, and review GitHub repositories for security audits and disclosed vulnerabilities.

5/5 example: Open-source, locally stored encrypted keys, biometric + PIN, seed phrase shown once with backup verification, hardware wallet support, audited by Trail of Bits
3/5 example: Closed-source, PIN only, seed phrase backup optional, basic transaction confirmation
1/5 example: Cloud-stored keys without encryption, no seed phrase backup, auto-signs transactions, history of hacks

2. Supported Assets & Networks (20% weight)

What we check:

• Number of supported blockchains (Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, etc.)
• Token standards supported (ERC-20, SPL, BEP-20, etc.)
• Layer-2 and sidechain compatibility (Arbitrum, Optimism, Polygon, Base)
• NFT display and management
• Ability to add custom tokens manually
• Multi-chain address management (single seed for all chains vs. per-chain)

Why it matters:

A wallet that only supports Ethereum misses Bitcoin, Solana, and 90% of L2 activity. If you can’t add custom tokens, new airdrops and launches are inaccessible.

How we test:

We add wallets for BTC, ETH, SOL, and test L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism). We import custom tokens using contract addresses, attempt to receive NFTs, and check if the wallet auto-detects new tokens or requires manual addition.

5/5 example: 50+ chains including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, all major L2s, auto-detects tokens, NFT gallery
3/5 example: Ethereum + 5 EVM chains, manual token import, basic NFT support
1/5 example: Ethereum only, no L2s, no custom tokens, no NFTs

3. Transaction Costs & Speed (15% weight)

What we check:

• Gas/fee estimation accuracy
• Ability to customize transaction fees (slow/standard/fast presets, manual input)
• Support for Replace-By-Fee (RBF) or transaction speed-up
• Batch transaction support
• Real-time fee recommendations (integration with gas trackers)
• Network congestion warnings

Why it matters:

Overpaying 3x on gas because the wallet defaults to “fast” adds up. If you can’t adjust fees or speed up stuck transactions, you’re at the wallet’s mercy.

How we test:

We send test transactions during low and high network congestion, compare wallet fee estimates to external gas trackers (Etherscan, Solana Beach), test custom fee input, attempt to speed up pending transactions, and check if the wallet warns about high fees.

5/5 example: Real-time gas tracker integration, custom fee input, RBF/speed-up, batch sends, congestion warnings
3/5 example: Slow/standard/fast presets, fee estimates within 20% of actual, no RBF
1/5 example: Fixed fees, no customization, estimates off by 50%+, no stuck transaction recovery

4. User Experience & Interface (15% weight)

What we check:

• Onboarding clarity (wallet creation, seed phrase education)
• Navigation and menu structure
• Transaction history readability (token amounts, USD values, timestamps)
• Portfolio overview (balance aggregation, token sorting, chart integration)
• Mobile vs. desktop experience consistency
• Dark mode, language support, accessibility features

Why it matters:

A confusing interface leads to mistakes. If you can’t easily see your balance, find transaction history, or understand what you’re signing, the wallet becomes a liability.

How we test:

We create wallets from scratch, navigate core functions (send, receive, history, settings), test mobile and desktop versions, attempt to find specific past transactions, and evaluate portfolio clarity and USD conversion accuracy.

5/5 example: Intuitive navigation, clear balance display with USD values, detailed transaction history, mobile = desktop functionality, dark mode
3/5 example: Functional layout, basic transaction list, mobile lacks some desktop features
1/5 example: Confusing menus, balance hidden in submenus, transaction history incomplete, mobile unusable

5. DeFi & dApp Integration (10% weight)

What we check:

• Built-in dApp browser (mobile and desktop)
• WalletConnect support
• Native DEX swap functionality
• Staking and yield farming interfaces
• Gas-free transaction options (meta-transactions, account abstraction)
• Support for signing messages and interacting with smart contracts

Why it matters:

Without dApp integration, you can’t access DeFi, NFT marketplaces, or on-chain governance. If WalletConnect is missing, most Web3 apps are inaccessible.

How we test:

We connect wallets to Uniswap, OpenSea, and Aave via WalletConnect and built-in browsers, test native swap features, attempt to stake tokens, and sign messages for dApp authentication.

5/5 example: Built-in browser, WalletConnect, native swaps with DEX aggregation, staking UI, meta-transactions
3/5 example: WalletConnect only, basic swap, no staking UI
1/5 example: No WalletConnect, no dApp browser, send/receive only

6. Recovery & Backup Systems (10% weight)

What we check:

• Seed phrase generation (12/24 words, BIP39 standard)
• Backup verification process (wallet tests user on seed phrase)
• Cloud backup options (encrypted iCloud/Google Drive sync)
• Social recovery options (Argent-style guardians)
• Multi-signature support
• Account migration tools (import from other wallets)

Why it matters:

If you lose your seed phrase and the wallet has no recovery mechanism, your funds are gone. Weak backup processes lead to permanent loss.

How we test:

We generate new wallets, document backup flows, test seed phrase import/export, attempt cloud backups (if available), and check if the wallet verifies that we’ve saved the seed correctly.

5/5 example: BIP39 seed, backup verification quiz, encrypted cloud backup, social recovery, import from other wallets
3/5 example: BIP39 seed, basic backup prompt, no verification, no cloud backup
1/5 example: No seed phrase shown, cloud-only with no export, no recovery if account locked

7. Customer Support & Documentation (5% weight)

What we check:

• Support channel availability (live chat, email, tickets)
• Response times for common issues (lost access, transaction stuck)
• Educational resources (setup guides, security tips, FAQ)
• Community presence (Discord, Telegram, Reddit)
• API and developer documentation quality

Why it matters:

When your transaction is stuck or you can’t access your wallet, responsive support matters. Good documentation prevents mistakes before they happen.

How we test:

We submit support tickets for common issues (password reset, transaction delays), measure response times, review help center content, and check community engagement on Discord/Telegram.

5/5 example: 24/7 live chat with <10min response, comprehensive guides, active Discord, detailed API docs
3/5 example: Email support with 24hr response, basic FAQ, limited community
1/5 example: No support, outdated docs, inactive community

How We Calculate Final Scores

Step 1: Rate each criterion on the 1-5 scale
Step 2: Multiply each score by its weight
Step 3: Sum the weighted scores

Example: Wallet X

Criterion	Score	Weight	Weighted Score
Security & Key Management	5/5	0.25	1.25
Supported Assets & Networks	4/5	0.20	0.80
Transaction Costs & Speed	4/5	0.15	0.60
User Experience & Interface	5/5	0.15	0.75
DeFi & dApp Integration	5/5	0.10	0.50
Recovery & Backup Systems	4/5	0.10	0.40
Customer Support & Documentation	3/5	0.05	0.15
Total	30/35	1.00	4.45/5.00

Final rating: 4.45/5 (89%)

What We Don’t Rate

• Code-level security audits – We’re not penetration testers. We rely on published audits and observable security practices.
• Legal compliance or regulatory status – Varies by jurisdiction; we focus on technical functionality.
• Long-term wallet survival – Projects can be abandoned. A 5/5 today might be unsupported next year.
• Cold storage or hardware wallet functionality – This methodology covers hot wallets only.

Why Trust Our Ratings?

We test wallets with real funds (small amounts), generate new wallets, execute transactions on mainnet, and interact with DeFi protocols. We don’t accept payment for ratings or modify scores based on partnerships.

Our process:

1. Download wallet (mobile + desktop if available)
2. Generate new wallet, document seed phrase backup flow
3. Test security features (PIN, biometrics, transaction signing)
4. Add Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, and L2 wallets
5. Send small test transactions ($5-$20) across chains
6. Test custom token import and NFT display
7. Connect to Uniswap and OpenSea via WalletConnect
8. Test native swap and staking features (if available)
9. Attempt seed phrase recovery on a second device
10. Submit support ticket and measure response time
11. Review documentation and community channels

What we don’t do:

We don’t store large amounts in hot wallets for testing. We don’t test wallets that require KYC or custodial sign-up. We don’t rate wallets we can’t access due to regional restrictions.

Questions?

If you think we’ve missed something or scored a wallet unfairly, contact us at [email protected].

We update ratings quarterly or when wallets make major changes (security incidents, new chain support, major UX overhauls).

Last updated: January 2026
Next methodology review: Expected Q2 2026