Stakefish excels at scale and multi-chain diversification because of its early mover advantage and extensive validator footprint. For example, it operates over 10,000 nodes across more than 40 networks, including Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos, securing tens of billions in total value. This scale provides institutional clients with a proven, battle-tested infrastructure and a single point of management for a fragmented portfolio. Their focus on non-custodial staking and support for complex operations like MEV-boost on Ethereum appeals to funds prioritizing asset sovereignty and yield optimization.
LABS
Comparisons
Stakefish vs Figment: Institutional StaaS
A technical and operational comparison of Stakefish and Figment, two leading institutional Staking-as-a-Service providers, analyzing multi-chain support, slashing protection, insurance, and API offerings for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Institutional Staking Landscape
A data-driven comparison of Stakefish and Figment, the leading institutional-grade Staking-as-a-Service (StaaS) providers.
Figment takes a different approach by prioritizing security compliance and developer relations. This results in a trade-off of slightly narrower chain support for deeper integration and enterprise-grade assurances. Figment is renowned for its institutional-first posture, offering SOC 2 Type II compliance, dedicated legal and tax support, and its comprehensive DataHub API suite for application development. Their strategy is less about validator count and more about building the trusted rails and tooling (like their cosmos-kit and web3.js libraries) that large, regulated entities require to participate safely.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing operational scale across the broadest array of L1s and L2s with a lean interface, choose Stakefish. If you prioritize regulatory compliance, dedicated enterprise support, and developer tools for building on top of staked assets, choose Figment. For a pure-play treasury staking operation, Stakefish's reach is compelling. For a protocol or financial institution embedding staking into its product, Figment's full-stack approach is often decisive.
tldr-summary
Stakefish vs Figment
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of institutional staking-as-a-service (StaaS) providers, highlighting core strengths and trade-offs for CTOs and protocol architects.
01
Stakefish: Multi-Chain Scale & Infrastructure
Operational Breadth: Supports 40+ networks (Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, Avalanche). This matters for institutions managing a diversified portfolio across ecosystems.
Infrastructure Focus: Known for custom hardware and deep protocol-level engineering, offering MEV optimization on Ethereum and SVM infrastructure on Solana. Critical for maximizing validator rewards.
02
Stakefish: Potential Trade-offs
Service Scope: Primarily focused on core validator operations and MEV. Institutions may need to integrate separate tools for comprehensive governance participation or analytics.
Enterprise Focus: Pricing and SLAs are tailored for large-scale commitments, which may have a higher entry barrier for smaller institutional portfolios.
03
Figment: Developer Tools & Governance
Protocol Integration Suite: Offers DataHub APIs and Figment Learn educational resources alongside staking. This matters for teams building applications that need easy RPC/archive node access.
Governance Specialization: Provides vote delegation services and detailed governance reporting for networks like Cosmos and Polkadot. Essential for institutions with active treasury management mandates.
04
Figment: Potential Trade-offs
Network Concentration: While supporting 40+ chains, historical deep expertise is strongest in Proof-of-Stake pioneers like Cosmos and Ethereum. Newer L1/L2 support may be more curated.
Abstraction Layer: The focus on developer tools and APIs can abstract away some low-level validator control, which may not suit institutions requiring granular infrastructure oversight.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Stakefish vs Figment: Institutional StaaS Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for institutional staking-as-a-service providers.
| Metric | Stakefish | Figment |
|---|---|---|
Institutional Clients | Coinbase, BitGo, Kraken | Fidelity, Binance, BlockFi |
Supported Networks | 40+ (Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos) | 70+ (Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot) |
Slashing Insurance | ||
Self-Custody Options | ||
MEV Revenue Sharing | 100% to client | 90% to client |
Minimum Stake (ETH) | 32 ETH | No minimum |
Fee Structure | 10-15% of rewards | 10-15% of rewards |
SLA Uptime Guarantee | 99.9% | 99.5% |
pros-cons-a
Stakefish vs Figment: Institutional StaaS
Stakefish: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of two leading institutional staking-as-a-service providers. Evaluate key strengths and trade-offs for protocol selection and migration.
01
Stakefish: Multi-Chain Breadth
Extensive protocol support: Validates on 40+ networks including Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, and Polygon. This matters for institutions managing diversified portfolios who need a single dashboard for cross-chain exposure and reporting.
40+
Networks
02
Stakefish: Technical Infrastructure
Proprietary node architecture: Employs self-hosted, geo-distributed infrastructure with multi-cloud redundancy. This matters for security-focused allocators prioritizing slashing protection, 99.9%+ uptime, and direct control over validator keys.
04
Figment: Governance & Research
Deep protocol expertise: Maintains a dedicated research team publishing analysis on tokenomics and upgrade impacts. This matters for long-term token holders (e.g., DAO treasuries) who require active governance participation and strategic voting guidance.
05
Stakefish: Fee Structure Trade-off
Potentially higher fees: Commission structures can be less transparent and sometimes higher than competitors for top-tier networks. This matters for large-scale validators (e.g., 10,000+ ETH) where basis points directly impact annual returns.
06
Figment: Breadth vs. Depth Trade-off
Smaller network footprint: Supports ~30 protocols, with less emphasis on newer, high-risk chains compared to Stakefish. This matters for institutions seeking exposure to emerging Layer 1s where early validator slots offer higher rewards.
pros-cons-b
Stakefish vs Figment: Institutional StaaS
Figment: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading institutional staking-as-a-service providers at a glance.
01
Figment's Strength: Protocol Breadth & Developer Focus
Supports 40+ proof-of-stake networks, including Cosmos, Ethereum, Solana, and Polkadot. This is paired with a strong DataHub API suite for developers building on these chains. This matters for institutions managing multi-chain portfolios or building applications that require direct node access.
02
Figment's Strength: Governance & Research
Offers in-depth governance research and voting services. Their Learn and Earn program educates token holders. This matters for institutions that want to actively participate in protocol governance and require curated insights to inform their votes on proposals.
03
Stakefish's Strength: Scale & Pure-Play Staking
One of the largest validators by total stake, operating with a singular focus on staking infrastructure across networks like Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos. This scale can translate to proven, battle-tested node operations and high reliability. This matters for institutions prioritizing maximum uptime and a provider with a long, dedicated track record.
04
Stakefish's Strength: Transparency & Tooling
Provides real-time, public dashboards for validator performance and slashing history. Offers tools like f(x) Wallet for multi-chain asset management. This matters for institutions that require full visibility into their staking operations and prefer self-service monitoring tools.
05
Figment's Consideration: Potential Complexity
The extensive service suite (DataHub, Learn & Earn, Governance) can add layers of complexity versus a pure staking core. This matters for institutions that want a straightforward, hands-off staking service without additional product bundles.
06
Stakefish's Consideration: Narrower Service Scope
Focus is predominantly on core validation and wallet services, with less emphasis on developer APIs or structured governance research. This matters for institutions that need integrated developer tooling or delegated research to inform protocol participation beyond basic staking.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
Stakefish for Max Security
Verdict: The institutional-grade choice for capital preservation. Strengths: Stakefish operates with a non-custodial, multi-cloud, multi-region infrastructure designed for maximum uptime and slashing risk mitigation. Their security posture is defined by SOC 2 Type II compliance, dedicated HSM clusters, and a proven track record across 40+ networks with zero slashing incidents. For institutions with fiduciary duties (e.g., hedge funds, regulated entities), this operational rigor is non-negotiable. Their insurance-backed coverage for slashing events provides a concrete financial backstop.
Figment for Max Security
Strengths: Figment also provides a robust, institutional-grade security framework with SOC 2 Type II compliance and dedicated validator infrastructure. Their DataHub API suite includes enterprise-grade security features like API key management and audit logging. However, their core differentiator is a broader service layer (e.g., governance, analytics) which, while valuable, can be seen as expanding the potential attack surface compared to Stakefish's more singular focus on bulletproof validation.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown of the core trade-offs between Stakefish and Figment for institutional staking-as-a-service.
Stakefish excels at scale and multi-chain diversification because of its early-mover advantage and capital efficiency. For example, it consistently ranks among the top validators by total stake across major networks like Ethereum, Solana, and Cosmos, with a proven track record of 99.9%+ uptime. Their infrastructure is battle-tested, securing billions in assets, which appeals to institutions seeking a reliable, high-throughput partner for a broad portfolio of Proof-of-Stake assets.
Figment takes a different approach by prioritizing developer tools and institutional-grade compliance. This results in a trade-off where their validator footprint may be slightly more curated, but they offer superior value-add services like the Hubble data platform, comprehensive on-chain governance participation, and SOC 2 Type II certification. Their focus is on enabling institutions to be active, informed network participants beyond just earning yield.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing operational scale, cost efficiency, and breadth of supported networks (30+) with a lean service model, choose Stakefish. If you prioritize deep protocol engagement, robust data analytics, and a compliance-first framework for mission-critical allocations, choose Figment. For most institutions, the decision hinges on whether staking is viewed as a pure yield play or a strategic operational function.
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