[ COMPARE ]

1Claw vs Turnkey for AI agent transaction signing

[ SHORT ANSWER ]

Turnkey is the stronger primitive if what you need is raw key infrastructure: verifiable TEE signing, a granular policy engine over key usage, and high signing throughput at scale. Choose 1Claw when the signer is an autonomous agent and you want the surrounding governance in one product — per-agent identity, simulation before signing, spend caps, transaction guardrails, and human approval routing, on six chains, starting free at 100 signatures a month.

Both keep the private key out of the agent. The difference is scope. Turnkey gives you excellent key custody and expects you to build the agent policy layer above it. 1Claw ships that layer: guardrails evaluate the inner call before any Safe or ERC-4337 wrapping, spend policies and daily caps are enforced server-side, and matching transactions can be routed to a human for approval instead of signed.

[ COMPARISON ]

1Claw vs Turnkey

Capability by capability. A dash means partial or qualified support — read the note.

Capability
Turnkey
1Claw
Private key never leaves secure hardware
Verifiable TEE attestation of the signer
Signing throughput at high scale
Granular policy over key usage
First-class agent identity with scoped JWTs
Simulation before signing
Spend caps and per-chain daily budgets
Route a matching transaction to human approval
Secrets management in the same product
MCP server for AI agents
Free tier1Claw Free: 100 signatures/mo, 10 wallets.

[ WHEN TO USE ]

Which one is right for you

Most of these are not either/or. Where the competitor is the better answer, we say so.

Use Turnkey when

  • You are building your own wallet product and want the key infrastructure primitive, not an opinionated agent layer.
  • Verifiable TEE attestation of every signature is a requirement you must show customers.
  • You need signing volume and latency characteristics beyond what an agent platform targets.

Use 1Claw when

  • An autonomous agent initiates the transaction and you need guardrails on what it may sign.
  • You want simulation, spend caps, and human approval without building them yourself.
  • The same agent also needs API credentials, which live in the same vault and policy model.

[ MIGRATION ]

Moving over in three steps

Most teams keep Turnkey for what it is good at and add 1Claw for the agent layer.

  1. 1Import existing keys with Key Import (BYOK), or provision new signing keys per agent.
  2. 2Attach transaction guardrails: address allowlists, per-chain value caps, and daily budgets.
  3. 3Set a tx_approval_policy so transactions above your threshold return awaiting_approval instead of signing.

[ FAQ ]

Common questions

Does 1Claw use a TEE for signing?

There is a TEE signing path through Shroud for transaction proxying, and MPC key splitting across multiple HSM providers for custody. If independently verifiable per-signature attestation is your requirement, evaluate Turnkey's model directly — it is more explicit about that guarantee.

Can I use Turnkey for custody and 1Claw for policy?

The products overlap rather than compose cleanly today. Most teams pick one as the signer. If you already run Turnkey, the honest comparison is whether 1Claw's guardrail and approval layer is worth moving for.

Which chains does 1Claw sign on?

Ethereum and EVM chains, Bitcoin, Solana, XRP, Cardano, and Tron, with key generation and signing on each.

[ RELATED ]

Other comparisons

[ FREE TIER ] 3 vaults · 50 secrets · 2 agents · 100 signatures/mo

Give agents access, not copies

Store the credential once, scope it per agent, and let the agent act without ever holding it.