Ranked & Reviewed · 6 services
Best Staking Platforms
Six staking platforms for ETH and SOL ranked on published commission, custody, operator spread, slashing disclosure and exit terms, scored from documentation and terms checked in November 2026.
By Dan Reyes · Last checked Nov 6, 2026
At a glance
| # | Service | Score | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Marinade | 9.0 | Solana staking with zero reward fee and stake spread across validators |
| 2 |  Rocket Pool | 9.0 | Permissionless Ethereum staking with a fully published fee split |
| 3 |  Lido | 8.0 | Liquid ETH staking with a fixed published 10% fee |
| 4 |  StakeWise | 8.0 | Choosing your own Ethereum staking operator with published fee rules |
| 5 |  Everstake | 7.4 | Published per-network commission with self-custody of staked funds |
| 6 |  Figment | 7.2 | Non-custodial staking with contractual slashing cover and stated caps |
Best Staking Platforms, ranked by score
Marinade scores 9.0/10, up from 7.2: it takes no fee on staking rewards, prices every exit route and spreads SOL across 100+ capped validators with bond-funded downtime cover. That cover stops at each validator's bond and excludes contract failure. Based on desk research of its docs and terms on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Fee transparency 10: on-chain reward fee set to 0 and every exit fee itemised
- Decentralisation 9: stake auctioned to 100+ validators, max 15% each, with hosting and country caps
- Exit & liquidity 9: delayed exit in about a day, plus instant routes for native stake and mSOL
- Risk disclosure 8: bond-funded compensation for downtime and commission hikes, results posted per epoch
Cons
- Downtime cover is limited to each validator's bond, and MEV and block rewards are excluded
- Custody & control 9: native stake runs through Marinade's proxy program; mSOL relies on the pool
- Instant exit costs are market-set (0.10%–0.40% native, up to 1.5% via the mSOL pool)
- Terms exclude US, Canadian, Japanese and other residents
Rocket Pool scores 9.0/10, up from 8.0: anyone can run a node with a 4 ETH bond, its 14% commission and 5%/9% split are published, and rETH stays liquid. Cover is limited to operator bonds and RPL, and protocol redemption depends on pool liquidity. Based on desk research of its GitHub docs on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Decentralisation 10: anyone can run a node with a 4 ETH bond per validator, no approval
- Fee transparency 10: 14% commission split 5% base and 9% voter share, plus a 0.05% deposit fee
- Exit & liquidity 9: rETH can be burned when the pool has ETH or sold on a market such as Uniswap
- Operator bonds and staked RPL absorb validator losses before rETH holders do
Cons
- Risk disclosure 7: no cover beyond operator bonds and RPL, and no published incident history
- Protocol redemption fails with "Insufficient liquidity" when the deposit pool is empty
- Custody & control 9: staked ETH sits in protocol contracts and operator-run validators
- The rETH rate is reported by an invite-only Oracle DAO
Lido scores 8.0/10: a fixed 10% fee that leaves stakers 90%, a liquid stETH token and a withdrawal queue that normally takes 1–5 days. The operator-versus-DAO split is itemised for only one module, and its reserve fund is discretionary, not insurance. Based on desk research of Lido's pages and documentation on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Fee transparency 9: a fixed 10% of rewards in every module, with stakers keeping 90%
- Exit & liquidity 9: stETH can be sold anytime or redeemed via a queue that normally takes 1–5 days
- Decentralisation 7: permissionless Community Staking Modules run alongside the curated set
- Fee is a DAO parameter, changeable only by governance vote
Cons
- Operator and DAO shares are listed only as "Blended" for the Simple DVT and CSM v2 modules
- Custody & control 8: staked ETH sits in DAO-governed contracts, not under the user's key
- Risk disclosure 7: reserve fund is not insurance; payouts need a DAO vote and no cap is stated
- Withdrawals slow in bunker mode or when Ethereum's exit queue is long
StakeWise scores 8.0/10, up from 5.8: its docs now publish both fee layers, the exit queue and the risks, and users can create their own vaults. Fees vary by vault, validator registration runs through 6 of 11 oracles, and standard vaults carry no slashing cover. Based on desk research of its documentation on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Custody & control 9: terms say StakeWise takes no custody; oracles force exits if an operator stalls
- Fee transparency 8: operator vault fee and 5% DAO osETH fee published with a worked example
- Exit & liquidity 8: FIFO queue claimable from 15 hours on public vaults; osETH can be minted
- Decentralisation 8: users can create their own vaults, so operators aren't limited to partners
Cons
- No single rate: each vault sets its own fee from 0% to 100%
- Risk disclosure 7: penalties fall on the vault's stakers, with no slashing cover in standard vaults
- Validator registration needs approval from 6 of 11 oracles
- Vault shares are non-transferable unless osETH is minted or the vault is ERC-20
Everstake scores 7.4/10: it publishes a 10% ETH and 7% SOL commission and states it never controls user assets. One company runs every validator, exits follow protocol queues with no liquid token, and its terms exclude slashing liability. Based on desk research of its pages and terms on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Fee transparency 10: retail commission published per network, 10% on ETH and 7% on SOL
- Custody & control 10: terms say Everstake never accesses or controls user assets or keys
- Commission is charged on rewards only, never on the staked principal, per the ETH page
- Exit terms are stated for both networks, with no Everstake fee on unstaking
Cons
- Decentralisation 5: a single company operates every validator retail stakers use
- Risk disclosure 6: no insurance, and the terms exclude liability for slashing losses
- Exit & liquidity 6: no liquid staking token or instant exit; ETH exit time varies with the queue
- ETH page conflicts on timing, listing "Unbound 11 days" but saying there is no fixed period
Figment scores 7.2/10, up from 6.6: it contracts never to take custody and reimburses slashing up to a stated cap, and now documents its retail ETH fee and exit steps. One company runs every validator, and institutional fees stay confidential. Based on desk research of its docs and SEC filings on 1 November 2026.
Pros
- Custody & control 10: filed agreement says Figment will not take custody of tokens or rewards
- Risk disclosure 9: slashing reimbursement capped at six months of fees, claim rules published
- Pre-signed exit transactions on request let clients exit without Figment's cooperation
- Ledger ETH fee method is published: none on consensus rewards, targeting 8% overall
Cons
- Fee transparency 6: the retail fee is a dynamic target and institutional fees are confidential
- Decentralisation 5: a single company operates all validators
- Exit & liquidity 6: no liquid token or instant exit; ETH exit queue can run to weeks
- Slashing cover is documented for institutional contracts, not for Ledger retail stakers
Best staking platforms by use case
The six services fall into two designs. Marinade, Rocket Pool, Lido and StakeWise are protocols that spread stake across many operators. The first three offer a liquid token (mSOL, rETH and stETH), and StakeWise lets you mint osETH against vault stake. Everstake and Figment are single companies running their own validators while the stake stays in your account. Which design fits matters more than the gap between scores.
- Staking SOL across many validators, with no commission on rewards: Marinade. Its on-chain reward fee is set to 0 and every exit charge is itemised (fee transparency 10). Stake is capped at 15% per validator across 100+ validators (decentralisation 9), and validator bonds fund downtime cover (risk disclosure 8). Its terms exclude residents of the US, Canada, Japan and several other countries. See the Marinade review.
- ETH staking with a permissionless operator set: Rocket Pool, the category's only 10 for decentralisation. Anyone can run a node with a 4 ETH bond, and the 14% commission is published with its 5% and 9% split (fees 10). Protocol redemption of rETH depends on the deposit pool holding ETH. See the Rocket Pool review.
- A liquid ETH token with a fixed, published fee: Lido. It takes 10% of rewards and leaves stakers 90%, and stETH can be withdrawn through a queue that normally takes 1–5 days or sold (exit 9). The operator-versus-DAO split is itemised for only one of its three module types (fees 9). See the Lido review.
- Choosing your own Ethereum operator: StakeWise. Each vault's operator sets its own fee, the 5% DAO fee on minted osETH is published, and users can create vaults (custody 9, decentralisation 8). There is no single rate, and standard vaults carry no slashing cover. See the StakeWise review.
- Delegating ETH or SOL from your own wallet at a fixed retail commission: Everstake. It publishes 10% on pooled ETH and 7% on Solana (fees 10) and its terms say it never controls user assets (custody 10). It offers no liquid token, and its terms exclude slashing liability.
- Institutions that want contractual slashing cover: Figment. A staking agreement filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission commits it never to take custody (custody 10) and to reimburse slashing up to the fees it collected in the prior six months (risk disclosure 9). That cover is documented for institutional contracts, not for retail stakers using Ledger Wallet. See the Figment review.
How the ranking works
Each service is marked from 0 to 10 on five equally weighted criteria:
- Fee transparency: the commission on staking rewards published as a figure, with the split between operator and treasury broken out. A headline APY without the cut behind it scores low.
- Custody & control: a plain statement that the operator never takes custody, and whether you can unstake and withdraw without its cooperation. A 10 goes to services where the stake stays in your own account; a liquid token whose ETH sits in protocol contracts scores lower.
- Decentralisation: whether anyone can run a node without approval, and how widely stake is spread. Single-operator services are not excluded, but each scores 5 as a concentration risk.
- Risk disclosure: whether slashing and penalties are explained, what cover exists and its limits, and whether an incident history is published.
- Exit & liquidity: the unbonding route, whether a liquid token exists and how it is redeemed, and what an instant exit costs.
The overall score is the plain average of the five marks, rounded to one decimal. For Marinade, 10 + 9 + 9 + 8 + 9 = 45, and 45 divided by 5 gives 9.0. Ties are listed alphabetically. Marinade and Rocket Pool both score 9.0, and Lido and StakeWise both score 8.0, so in each pair the first name alphabetically comes first. The basis is desk research of each service's documentation, terms and, for Figment, that filed agreement. Everything was checked on 1 November 2026. We did not stake through any of them or measure realized returns. Marks are re-checked when documentation changes, and each change is logged with its source in the service's review. The full rules are on the ratings methodology page.
| Service | Fees | Custody | Decentralisation | Risk disclosure | Exit | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marinade | 10 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 9.0 |
| Rocket Pool | 10 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 9.0 |
| Lido | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 8.0 |
| StakeWise | 8 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 8.0 |
| Everstake | 10 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 7.4 |
| Figment | 6 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 6 | 7.2 |
What changed in this update
The November 2026 rescoring moved five of the six scores and reordered the top of the table. Most moves came from documentation that now states what it did not in July 2026. No service was withdrawn.
- Marinade rose to 9.0, from 7.2, and moved to the top. Its fees page now states that the reward fee is 0 and itemises every exit charge (fees 4 to 10). Its Protected Staking Rewards documentation sets out bond-funded downtime cover and its exclusions (risk disclosure 5 to 8).
- StakeWise rose to 8.0, from 5.8, the largest move. Its documentation now publishes both fee layers (4 to 8), lets users create their own vaults (decentralisation 6 to 8), explains staker risks (5 to 7) and documents the exit queue (5 to 8).
- Rocket Pool rose to 9.0, from 8.0. The protocol FAQ in its official documentation repository states the 14% commission and its split (fees 6 to 10) and the order in which losses fall (risk disclosure 6 to 7).
- Figment rose to 7.2, from 6.6. Its Ledger Wallet FAQ now explains how its ETH fee is taken (fees 4 to 6) and each stage of an exit (5 to 6). An earlier claim of "three levels of insurance" was dropped because the page could not be opened.
- Lido fell to 8.0, from 8.2, on a correction rather than a change at Lido. The previous review credited an itemised split for every module. Lido's fee page itemises it only for the Curated Module and lists the other live modules as "Blended" (fees 10 to 9).
- Everstake is unchanged at 7.4. Its current pages support each July mark.
Does a lower commission mean a higher score?
No. Fee transparency rewards a published, broken-out figure, not a low one. Rocket Pool's 14% commission earns 10 because its split is stated in full. Lido's lower 10% earns 9 because part of its split is listed only as "Blended". Marinade takes no commission at all, and charges instead on exit. To compare what you keep, net the commission out of the network's reward: on 1 ETH of rewards, a 10% fee leaves 0.9 ETH and a 14% commission leaves 0.86 ETH, before any deposit or exit cost. Our guide to staking returns after costs works through commission, slashing and exit timing.
What the scores do not cover
- Realized yield and validator performance. Headline APYs are estimates, and we measured neither returns nor uptime.
- Liquid token prices. stETH, rETH, mSOL and osETH can trade below their redemption value, and Marinade's terms say it does not guarantee mSOL price parity. Token-specific risks are scored in the liquid staking ratings, under a different rubric.
- Smart-contract and governance risk beyond what is disclosed. Audits are listed in several reviews, but an audit reviews code at a point in time and is not insurance. Lido's reserve fund is described by Lido as "not insurance", with any payout decided by DAO vote.
- Networks and products outside the reviewed scope. Everstake and Figment support many more networks than the Ethereum and Solana pages reviewed. Negotiated institutional terms, StakeWise Boost leverage and Lido V3 stVaults are not scored.
- Country availability and tax. Access rules vary by service, and staking rewards may be taxable where you live.
How to choose a staking platform
- Confirm the service is available where you live by reading its terms, not its marketing page.
- Find the commission as a figure, and note whether it is fixed, set per vault, or variable.
- Decide whether you need a liquid token. If not, delegating from your own account keeps the stake under your key, but exits run at protocol speed.
- Read what happens after a slashing event: who absorbs the loss first, whether any cover exists, and whether it has a cap or exclusions.
- Check the exit route and its cost under stress, not just the normal timing. Queues lengthen when many stakers leave at once.
- Treat any rating here as a description of published terms, not a recommendation to stake. Rewards can fall and are not guaranteed.
How we score this category
Staking returns only mean something net of what the operator keeps and of the risk you take to earn them, so this rubric follows disclosure rather than advertised yield. A platform that publishes its commission and its exit terms can be compared; one that shows an APY and nothing else cannot, and is scored accordingly.
Every service in this ranking is scored 0–10 against the same 5 criteria, each carrying equal weight (20% apiece). The overall score is their plain average, rounded to one decimal place, and each review prints the individual numbers and the arithmetic so you can reproduce the result yourself.
What each criterion covers
- Fee transparency20% of the score
- Whether the commission taken from staking rewards is published as a figure, and whether the split between operator and treasury is broken out. Quoting a headline APY without stating the cut behind it scores poorly here regardless of how attractive the number looks.
- Custody & control20% of the score
- Whether the operator states plainly that it never takes custody, whether tokens stay under your own key, and whether you retain the ability to unstake and withdraw without the operator's cooperation.
- Decentralisation20% of the score
- Whether anyone can run a node without approval, how many independent operators there are, and whether stake is concentrated in a curated set. A single-operator service is not disqualified, but it carries a different risk profile and is scored as such.
- Risk disclosure20% of the score
- Whether slashing and penalty exposure is explained rather than buried, whether any insurance or reimbursement exists and what its limits are, and whether the operator publishes its own incident history.
- Exit & liquidity20% of the score
- The unbonding period, whether a liquid staking token exists and how it can be redeemed, and whether an instant exit route is offered along with what it costs.
What does not affect a score
Only the criteria above count. No provider can buy a score, a rank, or an entry in this list. Where two services finish level, they are listed alphabetically rather than ordered silently.
The process across all categories, including how often we re-check, is set out in our ratings methodology.
Frequently asked questions
How were these staking platforms selected?
The ranking lists the six staking services we currently rate, each with a sourced review: Marinade, Rocket Pool, Lido, StakeWise, Everstake and Figment. All six are non-custodial services for Ethereum or Solana staking; none is an exchange staking product. Liquid staking tokens are also scored separately, in the liquid staking ratings.
Why does Marinade rank above Rocket Pool if both score 9.0?
Equal scores are listed alphabetically, so the order within a tie says nothing about which is better. The two reach 9.0 differently: Rocket Pool scores 10 for decentralisation against Marinade's 9, while Marinade scores 8 for risk disclosure against Rocket Pool's 7. They also stake different assets, SOL and ETH, so the network you hold decides between them.
Which risk do these scores not capture?
The scores do not measure how far a liquid staking token trades below its redemption value, or how a protocol's contracts behave in an exploit. Risk disclosure scores whether slashing and cover are explained, not how likely a loss is. Where cover exists it is limited: validator bonds at Marinade, operator bonds and RPL at Rocket Pool, a discretionary reserve fund at Lido and a six-month fee cap in Figment's institutional contracts. StakeWise's standard vaults carry none, and Everstake's terms exclude slashing liability.
What fees and country restrictions should I check before staking?
Check the commission as a figure, any deposit fee (Rocket Pool's protocol route charges 0.05%) and the cost of an instant exit, which is often market-set. Read the terms for residency rules: Marinade's terms exclude residents of the United States, Canada, Japan and several other countries. Tax treatment of staking rewards also depends on where you live.
How old are the measurements on this page?
Every service was checked against its own documentation, terms or filings on 1 November 2026, and this page was last reviewed on 6 November 2026. Fees set by governance or by individual vault operators can change at any time, so confirm the current figure before staking.
Rankings are editorial. Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.