MetaMask vs Trust Wallet

Name: MetaMask vs Trust Wallet OpenChainBench measurements
Creator: OpenChainBench
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

MetaMask leads on the only live benchmark. MetaMask wins on Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard ($106.4K vs $51.7K).

Read methodology Last measured Mon, 14 Sep 2026 20:52:00 UTCWindow: rolling 24h1 shared benchmark

MetaMask

MetaMask is the largest self-custody EVM wallet; its Hyperliquid integration routes perps orders through a registered builder code so users can trade Hyperliquid from within the wallet.

Trust Wallet

Trust Wallet is a 220M user self custody mobile wallet that ships a native Hyperliquid perps tab routing orders with a registered builder code from inside the app.

Side by side measurements

Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard

Trading

Provider	Builder fees collected	Volume routed	Users 24h	Effective fee bps	Time since last fill
MetaMask	$106.4K	$119.56M	1,387	0.090%	5.2 s
Trust Wallet	$51.7K	$54.82M	1,562	0.095%	1.7 s

Ranking is by raw builder fee revenue in USD, not by value for users. Bigger number means more fees collected via the on-chain builder code field. For the trader cost perspective, switch to the Effective fee bps companion tab. Native Hyperliquid UI orders carry no builder code and are excluded. Data from a local hl node tailing every fill on mainnet.

Frequently asked questions

MetaMask vs Trust Wallet: which one is better?

MetaMask and Trust Wallet are compared on 1 shared OpenChainBench benchmarks. MetaMask leads on Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard. See the live table on this page for every metric.

Which is cheaper, MetaMask or Trust Wallet?

On the Hyperliquid frontends builder revenue leaderboard benchmark, MetaMask leads at $106.4K versus Trust Wallet at $51.7K. Live measurement is updated continuously by the OpenChainBench harness.

How is the MetaMask vs Trust Wallet comparison measured?

Every benchmark on this page uses the same open methodology, published at https://openchainbench.com/methodology. Data is CC-BY-4.0. Measurement harnesses are MIT-licensed.

How this pair was selected

Auto-generated pairs require: both providers in the same benchmark for seven consecutive days, at least 1000 samples per provider, observable third-party search demand, and a public /products/[slug] page on OCB. Editorially curated pairs (like this one) may publish early when search demand is high and data is accruing — panels with fewer than 100 samples are shown as provisional. The full pair ledger is versioned in the public repo.