Phantom vs MetaMask: Which Crypto Wallet Is Actually Better?

Phantom started as the Solana wallet. MetaMask started as the Ethereum wallet. Both have expanded to support multiple chains. And now they're competing directly for the same users.

I've been using both daily for over two years. I have strong opinions about this and I'm going to share them honestly. Short answer: it depends on what chains you use the most. Longer answer: keep reading.

Speed and Performance

This is where Phantom absolutely destroys MetaMask. Phantom is fast. Like, noticeably fast. Transactions confirm quickly, the UI responds instantly, and switching between accounts takes a fraction of a second.

MetaMask feels sluggish by comparison. Opening the extension, waiting for it to load, confirming transactions. There's always a small delay that adds up when you're doing 20 transactions a day. Part of this is Ethereum's inherent slowness compared to Solana, but even when using MetaMask on faster chains like Polygon or Arbitrum, the wallet itself feels heavier.

MetaMask has improved in recent updates. The Snaps system added in 2023/2024 made it more extensible. But the core performance gap remains. If responsiveness matters to you, Phantom wins.

Chain Support

MetaMask supports Ethereum and any EVM compatible chain. That means Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, Avalanche, BSC, and dozens more. You can add any EVM chain manually with an RPC URL. The ecosystem is massive.

Phantom started with Solana and has since added Ethereum, Polygon, Base, and Bitcoin support. Yes, Bitcoin. You can hold BTC in Phantom now, which is a nice touch for people who want one wallet for everything.

But MetaMask's EVM chain support is deeper. If you're interacting with newer L2s or niche EVM chains, MetaMask probably supports them already. Phantom is more selective about which chains they add but the ones they do support work flawlessly.

Bottom line. If you live on Solana, Phantom. If you're deep in the EVM ecosystem across multiple chains, MetaMask. If you only use Ethereum and Solana, either will work but Phantom's multi chain experience is cleaner.

Swap and Trading Features

Both wallets have built in token swap features. Let's compare them.

Phantom's in wallet swap aggregates prices across Jupiter and other Solana DEXs. The execution is fast, the price impact display is clear, and the fee is a 0.85% commission on top of the DEX fee. For EVM chains, Phantom routes through 0x protocol.

MetaMask Swaps aggregates across multiple DEXs on whatever EVM chain you're using. The fee is 0.875%. The price comparison tool shows you what you'd get on different DEXs, which is useful. But the execution speed depends on the underlying chain.

For Solana swaps, Phantom is the clear winner because of Jupiter integration and Solana's speed. For EVM swaps, MetaMask has a slight edge because of deeper DEX aggregation across more protocols.

Both wallets charge similar fees for swaps. If you're doing large swaps, you're better off going directly to a DEX to avoid the wallet's commission. But for quick, small swaps, the convenience of in-wallet trading is worth the small fee.

Security Features

MetaMask has been around since 2016. It's battle tested. But that age also means it's been the target of more phishing attacks and malicious browser extensions than any other wallet. The wallet itself is secure, but the ecosystem of scams around it is enormous.

Phantom has built in transaction simulation. Before you sign a transaction, Phantom shows you exactly what will happen: what tokens will leave your wallet, what you'll receive, and whether the contract has any known risks. This feature alone has probably saved millions of dollars from phishing attacks.

MetaMask has added similar features with Blockaid integration, which warns you about malicious transactions. It works, but Phantom's implementation feels more polished and user friendly.

Both wallets support hardware wallet integration. MetaMask works with Ledger and Trezor. Phantom works with Ledger. If you use a Trezor, MetaMask is your only option here.

Mobile Experience

Phantom's mobile app is one of the best designed apps in all of crypto. It's fast, clean, and intuitive. The token display, NFT gallery, and transaction history are all well organized. It genuinely feels like a consumer product, not a crypto tool.

MetaMask's mobile app has improved significantly but still feels clunky compared to Phantom. The browser integration works but it's slower. The UI is functional but not beautiful. It gets the job done without inspiring any joy.

For mobile DeFi usage, Phantom is a better experience. Period.

NFT Support

Phantom handles NFTs beautifully. The gallery view shows your NFTs with full images, collection grouping, and easy listing on Magic Eden or other marketplaces. NFT management in Phantom is actually pleasant.

MetaMask added NFT detection in their app but the experience is basic. You can see your NFTs but the display is minimal and interacting with NFT marketplaces through MetaMask requires using the browser. It works but it's not elegant.

If NFTs are a significant part of your crypto activity, Phantom wins this category by a wide margin.

Developer and DApp Ecosystem

MetaMask is the default wallet for Ethereum DApps. When you go to Aave, Uniswap, OpenSea, or virtually any EVM DApp, MetaMask connection is the first option. Most DApps are built and tested with MetaMask first.

Phantom is the default for Solana DApps. Jupiter, Raydium, Tensor, and every Solana protocol assumes you're using Phantom.

Both wallets use WalletConnect for connecting to DApps that don't natively support them. In practice, MetaMask works with more DApps simply because the EVM ecosystem is larger.

The Verdict

I'll make this simple.

Use Phantom if:

• Solana is your primary chain
• You value speed and a clean UI
• You trade NFTs regularly
• You want Bitcoin, Solana, and Ethereum in one wallet
• Mobile DeFi is important to you

Use MetaMask if:

• You use multiple EVM chains beyond Ethereum (Arbitrum, Optimism, Base, etc.)
• You need Trezor hardware wallet support
• You interact with niche or new EVM protocols
• You're already comfortable with it and don't want to switch

Use both if:

• You're active on both Solana and EVM chains (this is what I do)

My personal setup is Phantom for Solana and quick cross chain swaps, MetaMask for deep EVM DeFi interactions on chains Phantom doesn't support. It works well.

If I had to pick just one wallet starting from scratch today in 2026, I'd pick Phantom. The experience is better, the multi chain support covers the most important chains, and the security features are more polished. MetaMask is the industry standard but Phantom feels like the future of what a crypto wallet should be.

But that's my preference. Both are solid, free, and non custodial. Your keys, your crypto. That's what actually matters.