Blowfish excels at real-time threat detection by simulating transactions before signing. Its engine parses complex contract interactions—like those on Uniswap, Aave, or Compound—to flag malicious logic, hidden approvals, or rug pulls. For example, it can detect a transferFrom call hidden within a seemingly benign NFT mint, preventing asset theft. This pre-execution simulation is critical for protecting users from sophisticated smart contract exploits.
LABS
Comparisons
Blowfish vs Harpie: Transaction Security (Wallets)
A technical comparison of Blowfish and Harpie, two leading transaction simulation and security engines designed to protect end-users from scams, hacks, and malicious transactions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Wallet Security
A data-driven comparison of Blowfish and Harpie, two leading transaction security services for wallet providers.
Harpie takes a different approach by focusing on post-transaction asset recovery. Its network of monitoring nodes detects when a theft occurs and can automatically freeze or redirect stolen funds to a secure vault before they are laundered through mixers like Tornado Cash. This results in a trade-off: it's a powerful safety net, but it requires users to trust Harpie's enforcement network and may involve more complex integration for full asset recovery workflows.
The key trade-off: If your priority is preventing theft before it happens with transparent, client-side simulation, choose Blowfish. It's ideal for wallets like Phantom or Backpack that prioritize user education and pre-signing security. If you prioritize mitigating losses after a breach and offer a concrete recovery guarantee, choose Harpie. This is crucial for institutional custodians or wallets serving high-net-worth individuals where asset recovery is a non-negotiable feature.
tldr-summary
Blowfish vs Harpie: Transaction Security (Wallets)
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two leading transaction security providers.
01
Blowfish: Superior Real-Time Simulation
Pre-transaction risk assessment: Simulates transactions across 30+ EVM and Solana wallets before signing, showing asset changes in plain English. This matters for high-frequency traders and DeFi power users who need to understand complex contract interactions instantly.
30+
Supported Wallets
< 1 sec
Simulation Speed
03
Harpie: Proactive Threat Blocking
Real-time threat prevention: Maintains a live database of malicious addresses and contracts, actively blocking transactions before they reach the user's wallet. This matters for enterprise custodians and retail users who prioritize absolute prevention of known scams and hacks.
100K+
Blocked Addresses
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Blowfish vs Harpie: Transaction Security Comparison
Direct comparison of key security features, coverage, and costs for wallet protection services.
| Metric / Feature | Blowfish | Harpie |
|---|---|---|
Simulation & Pre-Transaction Warnings | ||
Real-Time Blocking of Malicious Transactions | ||
Supported Chains | EVM, Solana, Sui, Aptos | Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism |
API Response Time | < 200ms | < 100ms |
Pricing Model | Freemium, pay-per-scan API | Subscription, free for individuals |
NFT & Token Approval Revocation Tools | ||
Enterprise-Grade Dashboard |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Blowfish vs Harpie: Transaction Security (Wallets)
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading transaction security providers. Data-driven analysis for CTOs evaluating wallet protection layers.
01
Blowfish Pro: Superior Simulation & UX
Advanced transaction simulation with human-readable previews. Translates complex contract calls into plain English (e.g., "You will approve spending 10 ETH"). This matters for user-facing wallet integrations like Phantom and Solflare, where preventing user error is critical. Their API response time is <200ms, ensuring no lag in the signing flow.
<200ms
API Latency
02
Blowfish Con: Limited Chain Coverage
Primarily focused on EVM and Solana. While they support major chains like Ethereum, Polygon, and Arbitrum, they lack support for emerging L1s like Aptos, Sui, or Cosmos appchains. This matters for protocols with a multi-chain strategy who need uniform security across all deployments. You must rely on other providers or custom solutions for unsupported networks.
03
Harpie Pro: Active Threat Neutralization
Proactive threat blocking that can freeze stolen assets pre-confirmation and offers a recovery service. This matters for high-net-worth individuals and institutional wallets where post-hoc analysis isn't enough. They maintain a real-time threat feed and have prevented over $130M+ in theft. Their model is security-as-a-service, not just an API.
$130M+
Theft Prevented
04
Harpie Con: Custodial Elements & Privacy
Requires an API key linked to your wallet address, creating a centralized point of monitoring and potential data leakage. Their recovery service may involve third-party arbitration. This matters for decentralized purists and privacy-focused dApps where user sovereignty is non-negotiable. It introduces a trust assumption beyond the smart contract layer.
pros-cons-b
Blowfish vs Harpie: Transaction Security (Wallets)
Harpie: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading transaction security providers, helping CTOs and architects choose the right defense layer.
01
Pro: Real-Time Threat Prevention
Blocks malicious transactions before they execute by intercepting and analyzing them in real-time. This proactive model is superior for protecting high-value wallets and institutional custodians from irreversible theft.
02
Pro: Multi-Chain Coverage
Supports Ethereum, Polygon, Arbitrum, and Optimism natively. This broad coverage is critical for protocols and users operating across the dominant EVM ecosystem, simplifying security management.
03
Con: Centralized Blocking Model
Relies on Harpie's centralized infrastructure to block transactions. This introduces a potential point of failure and requires trust in Harpie's operational integrity, a trade-off for decentralized purists.
04
Con: Limited to EVM Chains
No support for Solana, Bitcoin, or other non-EVM L1s. For teams building cross-chain applications or managing assets on diverse chains, this necessitates additional security vendors, increasing complexity.
05
Pro: Comprehensive Risk Engine
Analyzes over 20 risk factors including known malicious addresses, novel phishing patterns, and smart contract vulnerabilities. This depth is essential for sophisticated DeFi protocols handling complex, high-stakes transactions.
06
Con: Potential for False Positives
Aggressive blocking can flag legitimate transactions, especially for novel DeFi interactions or new protocols. This can disrupt user experience and require manual intervention, adding operational overhead.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Blowfish for High-Value Users
Verdict: The Premium Choice for Comprehensive Protection. Strengths: Blowfish excels for users with significant on-chain assets and complex transaction patterns. Its transaction simulation is the most detailed in the industry, providing human-readable previews of exact state changes, token approvals, and potential risks before signing. This is critical for interacting with novel DeFi protocols or large NFT purchases where a single mistake can be catastrophic. Its multi-chain support (Ethereum, Solana, Polygon, etc.) makes it ideal for multi-chain portfolios. Key Metric: Processes over 1.5 million simulations daily across major wallets like Phantom and Coinbase Wallet, catching sophisticated scams that simple signature analysis misses.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between Blowfish and Harpie depends on whether you prioritize proactive, user-facing security or reactive, protocol-level asset recovery.
Blowfish excels at pre-transaction security by simulating and explaining risks in real-time before a user signs. Its strength lies in a massive threat intelligence database, analyzing over 400 million data points to detect novel scams, malicious contracts, and phishing attempts. For example, its simulation engine can identify a malicious transferFrom call hidden within a seemingly benign NFT mint, preventing asset drain before it happens. This makes it ideal for wallet providers like Phantom and Trust Wallet who need to protect users at the point of interaction.
Harpie takes a different approach by focusing on post-compromise asset recovery. Its strategy involves monitoring the Ethereum mempool for unauthorized transactions from a user's address and front-running the exploit to transfer remaining assets to a new, secure wallet. This results in a trade-off: it's exceptionally effective at salvaging funds after a private key is compromised (claiming to have protected over $130M in assets), but it requires users to entrust their private keys to Harpie's network of relayers, introducing a different trust model.
The key trade-off: If your priority is preventing the hack through user education and real-time warnings, choose Blowfish. Its integration provides a seamless security layer that empowers users to make safer decisions. If you prioritize mitigating losses after a breach and your users value a guaranteed recovery mechanism for high-value wallets, choose Harpie. Its on-chain enforcement is a powerful last line of defense, though it operates under a more custodial-style security assumption.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall