A head-to-head comparison of Trezor and MetaMask — pricing, the features that actually differ, and which one fits which use case.
The original open-source hardware wallet — fully auditable firmware for maximum security
The most widely used self-custody browser wallet for EVM chains
These are the 5 capabilities where the two tools genuinely diverge — the rest of their feature sets overlap.
| Capability | Trezor | MetaMask |
|---|---|---|
| Non Evm Chains | Yes | Via Snaps |
| Mobile App | No | Yes |
| Browser Extension | No | Yes |
| In App Swap | No | Yes |
| Snaps Extensibility | No | Yes |
| Feature | Trezor | MetaMask |
|---|---|---|
| Self Custody | ✓ | ✓ |
| Hardware Wallet Support | ✓ | ✓ |
| Evm Chains | ✓ | ✓ |
| Non Evm Chains | ✓ | Via Snaps |
| Mobile App | ✗ | ✓ |
| Browser Extension | ✗ | ✓ |
| In App Swap | ✗ | ✓ |
| Nft Support | ✓ | ✓ |
| Snaps Extensibility | ✗ | ✓ |
| Multi Sig | ✗ | ✗ |
Pricing models differ substantially between these two.
Trezor
Custom
Trezor
Custom
MetaMask
Free
MetaMask
Custom
Watch out: No dedicated secure element makes it more vulnerable to physical chip extraction.
Watch out: Default Infura RPC leaks your IP and wallet activity to Consensys — always set a custom RPC.
Trezor edges ahead on our editorial score (4.4/5), but these tools aren’t straight substitutes. Pick Trezor when fully open source firmware — every security claim is independently verifiable matters most to your workflow; pick MetaMask when universal dapp compatibility — every evm dapp supports metamask first is the priority. The deciding factor is usually the trade-off you can least afford — Trezor means accepting that no dedicated secure element makes it more vulnerable to physical chip extraction, while MetaMask means default infura rpc leaks your ip and wallet activity to consensys — always set a custom rpc.
Trezor carries the higher editorial rating (4.4/5 vs 4.2/5), but they solve different problems. Trezor is the stronger pick when you need fully open source firmware — every security claim is independently verifiable. MetaMask wins when universal dapp compatibility — every evm dapp supports metamask first.
MetaMask is free to use, while Trezor is priced on request.
Trezor's main limitation is that no dedicated secure element makes it more vulnerable to physical chip extraction. For MetaMask, default infura rpc leaks your ip and wallet activity to consensys — always set a custom rpc. Weigh these against how you actually plan to use the tool.
In most cases yes — many teams run both, using each where it's strongest. Since Trezor leads on fully open source firmware — every security claim is independently verifiable and MetaMask on universal dapp compatibility — every evm dapp supports metamask first, the two are often complementary rather than mutually exclusive.