Trezor and Ledger have coexisted as the leading manufacturers of two of the most popular cryptocurrency hardware wallets in the world since 2014.
In addition to price, the key difference you will find is that Ledger offers a wider range of cryptocurrencies thanks to its support of third-party apps, while Trezor has a smaller range largely due to using its own unique wallet interfaces.
The prices and information used in this comparison is accurate as of April 2021.
Disclaimer: This information is not financial advice or an endorsement of cryptocurrency or any specific provider, service or offering. Cryptocurrencies are highly volatile and high risk. Do your own research and seek financial advice before buying. Please check with providers if their services are available in your state.
The latest Ledger has a solid price advantage over the Trezor, coming in at about $40 cheaper. And you can find even lower prices on older models.
Ledger Nano S vs. Trezor One
Ledger Nano S
On these too, the Trezor comes in a fraction cheaper. This is par for the course for Ledger, which has cemented its position in the market in part by being one of the cheapest full-featured hardware wallets around.
While the 2014 model of the Ledger is just a few dollars more than the Trezor from the same year, you’ll save significantly more going with the Ledger on the newest model. With free shipping on top of that, Ledger ends up even further ahead.
Both Ledger and Trezor have maintained similar security records across their devices.
Trezor Model T
Ledger Nano S
Ledger Nano X
There have never been confirmed reports of anyone losing their cryptocurrency with any of these wallets due to a fault in the wallet itself.
Both Trezor and Ledger have previously had their products flagged for allegedly being vulnerable if someone manages to get their hands on the device itself, but no serious practical attacks have been demonstrated.
Both also offer similar seed phrases, and similar security features such as duress passwords and hidden wallets.
Both wallets have similar security track records, but they achieve this security in quite different ways.
Trezor hardware wallets. These forego the use of secure elements, opting instead for open-source wallet design and firmware.
Ledger hardware wallets. These use secure elements in the wallets themselves, while the firmware itself remains closed source for now.
There is no industry consensus on which method provides better security, and neither is guaranteed to be 100% secure. It’s a constantly evolving area and these differences are the subject of ongoing debate. Both companies have taken periodic pot shots at the other.
In March 2019, Ledger announced that its security team had managed to crack Trezor wallets due to vulnerabilities resulting from its lack of a secure element, but the main vulnerabilities were quickly fixed.
The use of secure elements is considered industry best practice for a reason.
Trezor’s claim to open-source firmware creates a false distinction because it’s not possible to verify whether that’s the firmware in any given device without destroying it.
The reason Ledger’s firmware isn’t open source is because of non-disclosure agreements, not because it relies on secrecy for security.
Trezor’s open-sourcing does offer a degree of reassurance that’s absent from Ledger. However, it’s not the be-all and end-all.
Arguably, Ledger’s higher sales figures could present a similar point in its favor. If there are more Ledger devices on the market, there’s more certainty of it being unhackable in the wild. Plus, Ledger is in the process of open-sourcing its firmware, although to date it’s been slow going.
Also, Trezor did have an actual vulnerability at once point back in 2015, while as far as anyone knows Ledger never has. It was quickly fixed after discovery, but involved using an oscilloscope to analyze the device’s power usage in a way that would let an attacker decipher private keys.
The Ledger team found another similar vulnerability in Trezor wallets in 2019, along with other potential issues.
Plus, secure elements are widely regarded as the industry standard, so popular opinion may be on Ledger’s side.
One of the main usability features on hardware wallets is the size and clarity of the screen, and both the Trezor and the Ledger have made significant upgrades to their screen in the most recent generation.
Trezor Model T
Ledger Nano S
Ledger Nano X
The Trezor Model T, in particular, is distinguished by its uncommonly large screen.
The reason a large screen can make hardware wallets easier to use is because you need to be able to clearly read details, such as wallet addresses, on the screen to confirm them against what’s on your phone or computer when you’re sending funds.
This larger screen size does equal a slightly bulkier shape though.
Trezor Model T
64 x 39 x 10mm
Ledger Nano X
72 x 18.6 x 11.75mm
The Trezor is a squarer device than the Ledger, although it’s less than half the weight. In either case, though, they’re both small enough that you’d be hard-pressed to really feel the difference.
Other than the dimensions, the primary difference when actually using the devices might be that the Trezor has a touchscreen while the Ledger has physical buttons instead.
The larger color touch screen brings more intuitiveness to the Trezor Model T.
Software-wise, Ledger and Trezor both offer a degree of standardization for their devices by providing programs specially designed to pair with the wallets. When you want to use a specific currency, you can download the individual cryptocurrency “app” for your wallet.
Ledger supports more cryptocurrencies, and not all of the ones missing from Trezor are obscure.
Most notably, Trezor hardware wallets lack support for DAG-based cryptocurrencies such as IOTA and NANO.
Disclaimer: Cryptocurrencies are speculative, complex and involve significant risks – they are highly
volatile and sensitive to secondary activity. Performance is unpredictable and past performance is no guarantee of
future performance. Consider your own circumstances, and obtain your own advice, before relying on this information.
You should also verify the nature of any product or service (including its legal status and relevant regulatory
requirements) and consult the relevant Regulators' websites before making any decision. Finder, or the author, may
have holdings in the cryptocurrencies discussed.
Andrew Munro is the cryptocurrency editor at Finder. He was initially writing about insurance, when he accidentally fell in love with digital currency and distributed ledger technology (aka “the blockchain”). Andrew has a Bachelor of Arts from the University of New South Wales, and has written guides about everything from industrial pigments to cosmetic surgery.
How likely would you be to recommend finder to a friend or colleague?
Very UnlikelyExtremely Likely
Thank you for your feedback.
Our goal is to create the best possible product, and your thoughts, ideas and suggestions play a major role in helping us identify opportunities to improve.
finder.com is an independent comparison platform and information service that aims to provide you with the tools you need to make better decisions. While we are independent, the offers that appear on this site are from companies from which finder.com receives compensation. We may receive compensation from our partners for placement of their products or services. We may also receive compensation if you click on certain links posted on our site. While compensation arrangements may affect the order, position or placement of product information, it doesn't influence our assessment of those products. Please don't interpret the order in which products appear on our Site as any endorsement or recommendation from us. finder.com compares a wide range of products, providers and services but we don't provide information on all available products, providers or services. Please appreciate that there may be other options available to you than the products, providers or services covered by our service.