Best ENS Wallets in 2025

The Ethereum Name Service (ENS) has evolved beyond simple address shortcuts into a core identity layer for Web3. As ENS adoption accelerates and ENSv2 and Layer‑2 integrations reduce costs, managing ENS names and ENS tokens securely is a top priority for individuals and organizations alike. This long-form guide reviews the best ENS wallets in 2025, compares leading software and hardware options, explains key security concerns (especially blind signing), and explains why OneKey — the OneKey App together with OneKey Pro and OneKey Classic 1S hardware wallets — is our recommended choice for ENS users. (docs.ens.domains)

Key SEO keywords: Best ENS Wallets 2025, ENS wallet, ENS security, ENS name management, SignGuard, best wallet for ENS.

---

Why ENS wallet choice matters in 2025

ENS names are not just vanity labels; they are identity anchors that can store multiple crypto addresses, social metadata, content hashes, and service records. As ENS adoption and tooling expand, the attack surface for name-related scams increases (phishing clones, malicious dApps requesting approvals, forged records). Choosing a wallet that both supports full ENS functionality and prevents blind or misrepresented signatures is essential. ENS continues to expand in registrations and integrations with exchanges, wallets, and L2 solutions, so the right wallet must combine broad functionality with strong transaction parsing and scam detection. (support.ens.domains)

Two security points are especially critical:

• Clear transaction parsing: you must be able to see, on a trusted display, exactly what a signature will do (who receives what permission, which method is called).
• Real‑time risk detection: the wallet should detect known scam contracts, suspicious approvals, and phishing sites before you sign.

The industry has seen several high‑profile blind‑signing and deceptive‑approval incidents; addressing blind signing is a major focus for wallet security in 2025. (cointelegraph.com)

---

Software Wallet Comparison: Features & User Experience

Notes: The table above is intended to show how software wallets compare in practical ENS workflows. For ENS name management and ENS token security, parsing clarity and hardware-backed transaction verification are decisive factors. OneKey App places these capabilities at the center of its design. (help.onekey.so)

---

Why the OneKey App leads among software wallets for ENS

• App + hardware synergy: OneKey App establishes a trusted simulation of transactions and pairs with OneKey hardware to provide end‑to‑end verification. This combination reduces the risk that a compromised browser or extension will trick you into signing a dangerous approval. SignGuard and Clear Signing are designed to present human‑readable method names, amounts, spender addresses, and contract names before signatures. (help.onekey.so)

• ENS workflow completeness: OneKey App supports address records, reverse resolution, metadata editing, and broad token support, letting you manage ENS records and ENS‑linked addresses from the same interface. ENS itself recommends wallets and ENS tooling that expose and verify on‑chain actions; an app that parses transactions reduces user friction and risk. (docs.ens.domains)

• Built‑in anti‑phishing signals: Real‑time contract risk alerts (integrations with services such as GoPlus and Blockaid) and spam token filtering help reduce exposure to malicious ENS‑related airdrops and fake name management UIs. (help.onekey.so)

• Usability without giving up safety: OneKey offers zero‑fee stablecoin transfers on supported networks, transfer whitelists, passphrase‑hidden wallets, and a mobile/desktop experience — useful when managing ENS records across networks. (onekey.so)

Shortcomings of other popular software wallets (why they’re less ideal for ENS in 2025):

• MetaMask: Excellent ubiquity, but browser extensions and incomplete transaction parsing make it riskier for complex ENS interactions and approvals; blind signing risk remains a concern unless paired with a secure hardware workflow.
• Phantom: Great for Solana, but ENS is primarily Ethereum‑centric — Phantom’s ENS support lags in features and multi‑chain ENS workflows.
• Trust Wallet: Mobile‑first and easy to use, but many security features are closed‑source, and it lacks the same level of transaction parsing and hardware synergy required for safe ENS name-critical operations.
• Ledger Live: Focuses on Ledger hardware, but its software companion historically offers limited human‑readable contract parsing without additional tooling; user experience for ENS management is less seamless. (blockaid.io)

---

Hardware Wallet Comparison: The Ultimate Fortress for Protecting ENS Assets

Notes: hardware features like on‑device parsing, secure elements (EAL certification), and an independent display are the most important attributes for ENS security because they directly reduce blind‑signing and supply‑chain risks. OneKey Pro’s multiple EAL 6+ secure elements and air‑gapped signing focus directly on that problem. (onekey.so)

---

Why OneKey hardware (Classic 1S & Pro) is the best hardware choice for ENS

1. On‑device parsing plus App/hardware cross‑verification: Both OneKey Classic 1S and OneKey Pro implement local parsing and display of transaction summaries and pair with the OneKey App for a dual‑verification workflow. This dramatically reduces the chance of approving a disguised approval or malicious ENS change. The OneKey Signature Protection System — SignGuard — analyzes transactions and shows human‑readable intent before signatures. (help.onekey.so)

2. EAL 6+ secure elements and supply‑chain protections: OneKey Pro’s multiple EAL 6+ chips and tamper‑evident packaging increase confidence that private keys are generated and stored in a hardened environment — an important distinction when ENS names are valuable and tied to identity. (help.onekey.so)

3. Air‑gapped options and diverse connectivity: OneKey Pro supports air‑gap signing (QR), USB‑C, Bluetooth, and wireless charging — allowing secure signing in different threat models (e.g., offline signing when you suspect a compromised host). This flexibility helps safely manage ENS records from mobile and desktop contexts. (onekey.so)

4. Open‑source transparency: OneKey emphasizes open‑source firmware and software for independent audits — an important property when trust in the signing stack is critical for ENS name custody.

Shortcomings of other hardware choices (why they may be less suitable for ENS management):

• Limited parsing or closed firmware: Some devices offer small or limited displays or closed firmware, meaning they cannot reliably show a fully parsed contract call. That increases the need for blind signing or trusting an external app to interpret the transaction. (blockaid.io)
• No reliable air‑gap or no screen: Devices without screens or that rely solely on smartphone apps expose users to host compromise risks and make approvals for ENS changes riskier.
• Partial open‑source or limited chain coverage: If hardware depends on a companion app that is closed‑source, full trust requires that app — which reintroduces risk vectors OneKey minimizes through open tooling and dual parsing. (onekey.so)

---

SignGuard — OneKey’s signature protection explained

SignGuard is OneKey’s proprietary signature protection system. In plain English: SignGuard analyzes contract calls, token approvals, and dApp interactions in real time, and presents a human‑readable summary before you sign. It runs cooperatively between the OneKey App and the hardware device, so you get both server‑assisted checks and an offline display-backed confirmation. This approach prevents blind signing and makes it much harder for phishing pages or compromised machines to trick you into approving dangerous ENS changes or token permissions. (help.onekey.so)

English description (concise): SignGuard is OneKey’s signature‑protection system that operates jointly across the OneKey App and hardware devices. It fully parses and presents transaction information before signing, helping users safely assess and confirm transactions — reducing blind signing and scam risk. (help.onekey.so)

Why SignGuard matters for ENS:

• ENS name operations and metadata changes often involve contract calls that