Architecture comparisons
Where does authority live?
Compare how providers protect execution, authorize software, and govern changes. Each provider has a separate analysis with primary sources.
Wallet infrastructure
Private compute & AI
Scope and method
Published by Lit Protocol. Sources reviewed September 15, 2026. These are architectural comparisons based on provider documentation and, where identified, public source code. The conclusions labeled “Lit assessment” express our interpretation of the cited mechanisms.
All Lit wallet comparisons assume ChainSecured mode: a customer-controlled wallet owns the account, and contracts on Base govern permissions. Lit operates the TEE that executes those permissions. Lit architecture.
Account policy and runtime governance are distinct. Lit’s hosted upgrade documentation describes a 2-of-4 Safe with Lit-controlled signer keys and no timelock. That approval is publicly auditable; it is not a customer veto over every hosted upgrade. Configuration can change, so inspect the contracts linked in the upgrade-governance documentation.
Operational assurance and runtime evidence
SOC 2 examines a service organization’s controls. A report can inform due diligence, but does not itself demonstrate which binary is executing a request. Hardware attestation and code measurements provide a different kind of evidence. Providers can use both. AICPA’s SOC 2 scope; Lit’s attestation model.
The comparison criteria are software identity, authorization, upgrade control, and continuity. We have not benchmarked performance or reviewed private audit reports. A property absent from the cited documentation is not assumed absent from a provider’s product.
For AI, Lit’s deployment fit is assessed with the team. Each workload needs defined code and model measurements, data handling, and output policies. Runtime attestation is not a proof of model correctness or a guarantee against every data leak.