Marketing
Privy Alternatives in 2026: A Developer's Guide to Embedded Wallets After the Consolidation
Privy is now a Stripe company, Dynamic belongs to Fireblocks, and Web3Auth is part of Consensys. Here is an honest, developer-first comparison of the embedded-wallet options left standing in 2026 — custody models, account abstraction, chains, and acquisition risk.
BlocLabs Team
Editorial ·
If you searched for “Privy alternatives” this year, you were not alone, and the reason is structural. The embedded-wallet market consolidated in 2025, and several products developers chose precisely because they were independent are now owned by larger platforms with their own roadmaps. This is a developer-first guide to what is left, written by a team that builds this plumbing for a living.
We are not neutral — we build FabricBloc, an onchain stack at BlocLabs, and you will find it at the end. But the bulk of this piece is an honest comparison, because the most useful thing we can publish is the one we wished existed when we were evaluating vendors ourselves.
What changed in 2025–2026
Three acquisitions reshaped the category inside a five-month window:
- Stripe acquired Privy on June 11, 2025. Privy continues as a standalone product, now “a Stripe company.”
- Consensys acquired Web3Auth (formerly Torus) on June 2, 2025, folding its seedless login into MetaMask.
- Fireblocks acquired Dynamic on October 23, 2025, framing the deal as bringing “custody to consumer.”
None of these products shut down. But ownership is now a planning input. Privy has become the wallet layer behind AWS Bedrock AgentCore payments (May 2026) and Deel’s DLUSD payroll stablecoin (June 2026). That is a real strategic direction — and it is Stripe’s direction, not necessarily yours. If your product roadmap and your vendor’s parent company point the same way, consolidation is a gift. If they diverge, it is a risk you inherited without signing anything.
What to actually evaluate
Feature checklists age badly. These five questions hold up:
- Key custody model. “Non-custodial” is not one thing. A TEE (trusted execution environment) keeps the full key inside an enclave the operator cannot read. MPC/TSS splits the key so a complete key never exists in one place. SSS (Shamir Secret Sharing) shards a key that is reconstructed ephemerally at signing time. Each has different failure modes and a different answer to “what happens if the vendor is compromised?”
- Account abstraction support. ERC-4337 (smart accounts via bundlers and paymasters) and ERC-7702 (live on mainnet since the Pectra upgrade, May 2025) determine whether you get gas sponsorship, session keys, and batched transactions — or whether you bolt them on later.
- Multi-chain vs EVM-only. Some providers sign at the curve level and reach Bitcoin, Solana, and Cosmos. Others are EVM-first with Solana added. Match this to where your users actually are.
- Pricing at scale. Per-wallet economics that look fine at 10,000 wallets can dominate your cost of goods past 100,000. Ask for the number at your real scale, not the landing-page tier.
- Acquisition risk. After this year, it is a first-class criterion. Who owns the vendor, and does the parent’s strategy compete with or complement yours?
The current options
Custody models below are drawn from each provider’s own security documentation. This is the single most error-prone area in the market — vendors use “non-custodial” to mean different things — so we cite the source for each.
| Provider | Custody model | Account abstraction | Chains | Open source | Right for you if… |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Privy (Stripe) | SSS + TEE | 7702 native; 4337 via integrations | EVM + Solana + more | Core SDK closed | You want polished consumer onboarding and Stripe alignment is a plus |
| Openfort | SSS (embedded) + TEE (server) | Native 4337 + 7702, own bundler | EVM + Solana | Yes (MIT) | You want open-source, native account abstraction for stablecoin apps |
| Turnkey | TEE only, no MPC | Signs 4337 + 7702 | Broadest (curve-level) | Yes | You need programmable signing infrastructure, not a UX layer |
| Thirdweb | TEE | 4337 + 7702 | EVM (2,000+) + Solana | Yes | You want one full-stack toolkit across contracts, wallets, and infra |
| Crossmint | Mixed: TEE / HSM / MPC / passkey | 4337 + 7702, smart accounts default | Broad EVM + Solana (no BTC) | Yes (SDK) | You are enterprise and NFT- or stablecoin-heavy |
| Coinbase CDP | TEE (AWS Nitro) | 4337 Smart Accounts + Paymaster | EVM + Solana | Yes (MIT) | You are Base-native and want agent support out of the box |
| Dynamic (Fireblocks) | TSS-MPC + TEE | 4337 + 7702 | Multi-chain incl. Bitcoin | No | You are a fintech that wants onboarding and custody under one roof |
A few honest notes the table cannot hold:
- Turnkey is not a Privy replacement for most teams. It is a key-management and signing API — deliberately not a consumer onboarding product. If you switch to Turnkey expecting Privy’s login flow, you will be building that flow yourself.
- Openfort is the closest thing to “open-source Privy with native account abstraction.” If avoiding lock-in is your top concern, start here.
- Coinbase CDP is strong if you live on Base and want first-class AI-agent tooling, but its center of gravity is the Coinbase ecosystem.
- Dynamic now sits inside Fireblocks. That is an asset if you want consumer onboarding and institutional custody from one company, and a consideration if you wanted independence.
The gap nobody is filling
Here is the pattern we see repeatedly in client work. A team adopts an embedded wallet, ships, and grows. Then the requirements arrive that no single wallet vendor covers: they need payments and gas abstraction, then NFTs or token issuance, then verifiable identity, and eventually they need an agent to act on a user’s behalf. Each requirement adds a vendor. Wallets from one, a bundler and paymaster from another, an NFT API from a third, auth from a fourth.
That is the five-service stitch, and it is the real cost behind “which embedded wallet should I pick?” The honest answer is that the wallet is the easy part. The integration tax is paid across every service you add afterward — in keys, dashboards, bills, and failure modes that do not share a runbook.
Where FabricBloc fits
We built FabricBloc because we got tired of paying that tax on every project. It is an onchain stack — wallets, payments, NFTs, identity, and agents behind one SDK and one bill, non-custodial by architecture and EVM-native. The signing layer is threshold-based, so a complete key never lives in one place, and ownership stays with your users: if FabricBloc disappeared tomorrow, what you built keeps working.
FabricBloc is in early access. If the table above describes a decision you are weighing — and especially if you suspect one wallet vendor will not be your last integration — we would like to compare notes.
Request early access to FabricBloc →
You can also read our take on why scaling teams end up running two wallet vendors at once, explore our blockchain API services, or see the work we have shipped across DeFi, NFTs, and enterprise infrastructure. FabricBloc is built and operated by BlocLabs — learn more at fabricbloc.com.