Phantom excels at delivering a seamless, high-performance user experience for the high-throughput Solana ecosystem. Its interface is optimized for speed, with near-instant transaction confirmations leveraging Solana's 2,000-5,000 TPS capability. The wallet's deep integration with Solana's DeFi and NFT landscape—supporting protocols like Jupiter, Raydium, and Tensor—makes it the default choice for over 3 million monthly active users. Its multi-chain expansion to Ethereum and Polygon is a strategic hedge, but its core UX is built for Solana's low-fee, high-speed model.
LABS
Comparisons
Phantom vs Petra: Non-EVM Wallet UX
A technical analysis comparing Phantom (Solana) and Petra (Aptos) wallets for CTOs and developers. We evaluate core features, security models, ecosystem integration, and developer experience to inform infrastructure decisions.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Non-EVM Wallet Landscape
A data-driven comparison of Phantom and Petra, the leading wallets for the Solana and Aptos ecosystems, focusing on user experience and strategic trade-offs.
Petra takes a different approach by prioritizing security and formal verification for the Move-based Aptos blockchain. Developed by Aptos Labs, it offers a tightly integrated, audited experience for a chain designed for enterprise-grade safety. This results in a trade-off: while its ecosystem is younger (Aptos TVL ~$400M vs. Solana's ~$4B), Petra provides unparalleled security assurances for developers building financial applications. Its UX is clean and intuitive, but the available dApp portfolio, featuring protocols like Liquidswap and Amnis Finance, is currently more curated than Phantom's vast marketplace.
The key trade-off: If your priority is user acquisition and engagement within a mature, high-velocity DeFi/NFT ecosystem, choose Phantom. Its performance and network effects are unmatched for Solana. If you prioritize security-first development, formal verification, and building on a chain designed for future scalability and institutional use, choose Petra as your gateway to the Aptos ecosystem.
tldr-summary
Phantom vs Petra: Non-EVM Wallet UX
TL;DR: Key Differentiators
A direct comparison of the leading Solana and Aptos wallets for developers prioritizing user experience and integration.
01
Choose Phantom for Solana Dominance
Market leader on Solana: ~3M+ MAU and ~80% market share. This matters for mass-market dApps requiring maximum user reach. Superior NFT and token swap UX with built-in aggregators and staking. Deep integration with Solana's SPL token standard and Compressed NFTs.
3M+
Monthly Users
80%
Solana Share
03
Choose Phantom for Multi-Chain Expansion
Strategic expansion beyond Solana to Ethereum, Polygon, and Bitcoin via Phantom's unified interface. This matters for teams planning a multi-chain future who want a single wallet provider. Users manage EVM and non-EVM assets in one place, reducing onboarding friction.
4+
Networks
04
Choose Petra for Transaction Security
Move VM's resource-oriented model enables Petra to provide clearer, safer transaction previews, reducing signature phishing risks. This matters for high-value DeFi and institutional use cases on Aptos. The wallet is built by Aptos Labs, with direct access to core protocol teams.
NON-EVM WALLET UX COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: Phantom vs Petra
Direct comparison of key wallet features and metrics for Solana and Aptos ecosystems.
| Metric / Feature | Phantom (Solana) | Petra (Aptos) |
|---|---|---|
Supported Chains | Solana, Ethereum, Polygon | Aptos |
In-App Staking | ||
In-App Swaps (DEX) | ||
NFT Display Standard | Metaplex | Aptos Digital Asset Standard |
Avg. Transaction Fee | $0.00025 | $0.001 - $0.005 |
Hardware Wallet Support | Ledger, Trezor | Ledger |
Mobile App Availability | ||
Browser Extension |
pros-cons-a
WALLET COMPARISON
Phantom (Solana) vs Petra (Aptos): Non-EVM Wallet UX
A data-driven breakdown of two leading non-EVM wallets. Phantom dominates Solana's ecosystem, while Petra is the flagship for Aptos. Choose based on network priority and feature needs.
01
Phantom: Solana Ecosystem Dominance
Market leader with >3M MAU and deep integration across Solana's top protocols (e.g., Jupiter, Raydium, Tensor). This matters for users who prioritize access to the largest NFT marketplace and highest DEX volume outside of Ethereum. Native staking, token swaps, and compressed NFTs are seamless.
>3M
Monthly Active Users
$1.8B+
Solana TVL Access
03
Petra: Native Aptos Move VM Optimization
Built specifically for the Move language and Aptos' parallel execution. This matters for developers and power users who need flawless interaction with novel Aptos primitives like object-centric accounts and resource-based tokens. Transaction simulation and signing are optimized for Aptos' unique architecture.
< 1 sec
Aptos TTF (Typical)
pros-cons-b
NON-EVM WALLET COMPARISON
Petra (Aptos) vs. Phantom (Solana): Wallet UX Breakdown
A data-driven look at the leading native wallets for the Aptos and Solana ecosystems. Key differentiators in performance, features, and ecosystem integration.
01
Petra: Move Language Native
Built for Aptos Move VM: Petra is optimized for the Move language's resource model, enabling secure, type-safe interactions with dApps like Pontem Network and Liquidswap. This matters for developers and users prioritizing formal verification and asset safety.
02
Petra: Lower Fee Predictability
Aptos' fixed gas model: Transaction fees are stable and predictable, unlike Solana's variable priority fees. This matters for users and dApps (e.g., Econia) requiring consistent cost forecasting for high-frequency operations.
03
Phantom: Unmatched Ecosystem Scale
Dominant Solana market share: With over 3M+ monthly active users, Phantom integrates with the vast majority of Solana's $4B+ DeFi TVL (e.g., Jupiter, Raydium). This matters for users seeking maximum dApp compatibility and liquidity access.
04
Phantom: Superior Transaction Throughput
Optimized for Solana's speed: Handles Solana's 2,000-5,000 TPS with sub-second finality, crucial for trading on DEXs like Orca or using NFT marketplaces like Magic Eden. This matters for power users in high-speed trading environments.
05
Petra: Early-Stage Limitations
Smaller dApp ecosystem: Aptos' TVL (~$300M) is an order of magnitude smaller than Solana's, limiting the breadth of integrated applications. This matters for users who prioritize a wide variety of mature DeFi and NFT options.
06
Phantom: Network Congestion Risk
Exposed to Solana's volatility: During peak demand, users face failed transactions and high priority fees (> $0.50). This matters for cost-sensitive users and protocols requiring 100% transaction reliability.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Phantom for DeFi
Verdict: The dominant, integrated choice for Solana DeFi. Strengths: Native integration with top Solana DEXs like Jupiter, Raydium, and Drift. Superior transaction simulation shows precise slippage and fees before signing. Built-in staking UI for Solana validators and liquid staking tokens (LSTs) like mSOL and bSOL. Direct fiat on-ramps via MoonPay and Phantom's own on-ramp aggregator. Considerations: Limited to the Solana ecosystem. For cross-chain DeFi, you must bridge assets, adding steps and risk.
Petra for DeFi
Verdict: The essential gateway to the Aptos ecosystem's nascent DeFi scene. Strengths: Seamless interaction with Aptos-native AMMs like Liquidswap, lending protocols like Aries Markets, and liquid staking with Tortuga. The "Sign & Submit" transaction flow is optimized for Aptos's parallel execution, often resulting in faster perceived speeds. Petra's developer team is core to the Aptos Foundation, ensuring first-party support. Considerations: Aptos's Total Value Locked (TVL) is significantly lower than Solana's, leading to thinner liquidity and fewer mature protocols.
PHANTOM VS PETRA
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture & Security
A technical comparison of the two leading Solana and Aptos wallets, focusing on their underlying architecture, security models, and how these fundamentals shape the user experience for non-EVM chains.
Both wallets implement robust security, but their architectures differ. Phantom, as a Solana-native wallet, leverages the Solana runtime's security model and uses a 12-word BIP39 seed phrase with optional biometrics. Petra, built for the Aptos MoveVM, uses a 24-word mnemonic and emphasizes formal verification of its Move-based smart contracts. Phantom has a larger user base, which means more battle-testing, while Petra's security is tightly integrated with Aptos's resource-oriented Move language, offering strong protection against reentrancy attacks common in EVM.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A decisive comparison of Phantom and Petra, focusing on the non-EVM wallet UX trade-offs for high-stakes development.
Phantom excels at providing a seamless, multi-chain onboarding experience because of its aggressive expansion beyond Solana. For example, its support for Ethereum, Polygon, and Bitcoin via Bitget Wallet integration gives it a massive installed base of over 3 million monthly active users. This scale translates to a lower user acquisition cost for dApps and a familiar interface for users migrating from other ecosystems, making it the pragmatic choice for broad market reach.
Petra takes a different approach by offering a deeply integrated, performance-optimized experience for the Aptos and Sui ecosystems. This results in a trade-off: narrower chain support but superior execution for Move-based chains. Petra's tight integration with the Aptos SDK and its native support for features like sponsored transactions and keyless social logins provide a technically superior UX for developers building exclusively on high-throughput, Move-based L1s, which can process over 30,000 TPS.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing user reach across multiple high-value chains and you value a battle-tested wallet with vast liquidity bridges (like Wormhole, Allbridge), choose Phantom. If you prioritize technical depth, cutting-edge account abstraction, and native performance for next-generation Move-based protocols on Aptos or Sui, choose Petra. For CTOs, the decision hinges on ecosystem strategy versus specialized optimization.
ENQUIRY
Build the
future.
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