The short answerFrame's premise is architecturally correct: your keys should not live inside the browser that also renders untrusted websites. As a native desktop signer with granular per-dapp permissions and strong hardware wallet integration, it does that better than anything else — and it is a small project with a slow development pace.
Best forDesktop-native signing with hardware wallets
Key handlingweight 25%
9.0avg 8.5
Audits & opennessweight 20%
8.5avg 8.0
Transaction transparencyweight 20%
8.5avg 8.1
Coverageweight 15%
6.5avg 7.6
Recoveryweight 10%
7.5avg 7.8
Usabilityweight 10%
6.5avg 8.2
this service category average across 15Score = Σ mark × weight. Recommendable to most readers, with stated caveats. Methodology.
| Criterion | Mark | What we found | Source | Checked |
|---|
| Key handling | 9.0 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Audits & openness | 8.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Transaction transparency | 8.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Coverage | 6.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Recovery | 7.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
| Usability | 6.5 | not sourced yet | not sourced yet | — |
What we liked, and what fell short
Liked- Runs as a native app rather than a browser extension, shrinking the attack surface
- Excellent hardware wallet integration and per-dapp permissions
- Open source and privacy-respecting by default
Fell short- Small user base and slower development pace
- Setup is more involved than an extension
Why the marks landed where they did
Browser extensions are convenient and they run inside the most attacked software on your computer. Frame moves signing out to a native application: websites connect to it through a local provider, and every connection, chain switch and signature is approved in an interface that no web page can render or manipulate.
Permissions and control
Frame lets you grant permissions per origin, choose which account a given site sees, and route requests through your own RPC endpoints rather than a default provider that logs your activity. For privacy-conscious users, that last option matters more than most wallet features — the default RPC in most wallets sees every request you make.
Hardware integration
Among the best in the category, with direct support for Ledger, Trezor and Lattice1 without going through an extension. For anyone whose keys live on hardware, Frame is a cleaner path than a browser extension acting as an intermediary.
The trade-off
It is a small project. Development moves slowly, new chains and standards arrive later than in mainstream wallets, and support is community-based. Setup requires more effort than installing an extension.
Who should use it
Desktop users with hardware wallets who want to shrink the browser's role in their signing flow, and privacy-conscious users who want to control their own RPC endpoints.
FAQ
How is Frame different from a browser extension wallet?+
It runs as a native desktop application, so signing happens outside the browser's process and cannot be manipulated by a malicious web page rendering a fake interface.
Does Frame support hardware wallets?+
Yes, with direct native support for Ledger, Trezor and GridPlus Lattice1 — among the best hardware integration available.
Can I use my own RPC with Frame?+
Yes, which prevents a default provider from seeing every request you make — a privacy advantage most wallets do not offer easily.
Is Frame actively developed?+
It is maintained but by a small team, so new chains and features arrive more slowly than in mainstream wallets.
