How AI Search Is Recommending Crypto Wallets: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

September 2026 marks a decisive reordering in AI search recommendations for crypto wallets. Ledger is the category leader at 67.8% valid recommendation coverage in September, holding a 5.7-point lead over Trezor, the next brand, at 62.1%. The gap between first and second place is nearly double what it was in the May baseline, when Ledger led Trezor by 4.7 points.

Ledger delivered the largest single-month rise in the category, climbing 35.7 points from August's 32.1% to September's 67.8%. That movement, alongside gains for every other tracked brand, recovers the elevated coverage levels last seen in July before August's broad pullback. The leader gap has widened not because rivals fell but because Ledger's gain of 35.7 points in one month was the largest in the category, 2.5 points larger than Trezor's 33.2-point rise from August's 28.9%.

The sharpest divergence this month is a widening gap rather than a decline. Best Wallet's coverage rose 1.4 points from August (1.2% to 2.6%), but its gap to Trust Wallet widened to 58.9 points from 25.7 points in August and 16.1 points in May. September is the fourth consecutive tracked month of widening separation between the narrow-coverage segment and the category leaders, extending a pattern visible since July.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations in September (466 unique questions), 800 in August (454 unique questions), 800 in July (423 unique questions), and 1,425 in the May baseline. All 800 September prompts mentioned a tracked brand or competitor; 747 were relevant and 53 were irrelevant. The public metrics use the 686 qualified observations in September, 688 in August, and 700 in July that survive both qualification stages, against 1,425 in May. The prompt collection methodology changed between the May run and the July-through-September runs; that change is described in Benchmark Context.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set for each month.

The intermediate months had 700 qualified observations (July) and 688 (August), each drawn from 800 collected prompts. The collection methodology changed between the May run (1,425 observations) and the July-through-September runs (800 prompt surfaces each). That change is disclosed here; the trend series should be read with it in mind, since the benchmark cannot separate platform behavior from measurement effects.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

AI Recommendation Trend

The field separates into leaders and followers for the first time

September 2026 shows a two-tier category. Ledger (67.8%), Trezor (62.1%), and Trust Wallet (61.5%) form a tight top cluster separated by 6.3 points. MetaMask (49.9%) and Exodus (41.0%) sit in a second tier, with a 11.6-point gap to Trust Wallet. The remaining five brands range from Zengo at 21.6% down to Best Wallet at 2.6%.

Every tracked brand is a significant riser against the May baseline, and every tracked brand rose from August to September. The September pattern reflects a category-wide recovery from August's compressed levels, not a single dominant shift. Six of the ten brands registered significant riser classifications from August, and no brand moved down.

What Changed This Month

Ledger: Extends its lead with the largest single-month rise in the category

Ledger's September coverage of 67.8% is up 41.8 points from May's 26.0% baseline and up 35.7 points from August's 32.1%, the largest month-over-month gain of any tracked brand in September. The brand closed September with 465 valid recommendations from 686 qualified observations, the highest count in the category. In May, Ledger held 371 valid recommendations from 1,425 observations.

The gain is broad across the ranking dimensions. Ledger's top-three rate rose from 18.6% in May to 36.3% in September (up 17.7 points), and its rank-one rate rose from 10.2% to 22.4% (up 12.2 points). Raw mention presence rose from 37.8% in May to 94.0% in September.

Ledger has recovered to a coverage level near July's 68.6%, but with stronger position: its September rank-one rate of 22.4% is close to July's 22.7%, while its average recommended rank of 2.36 is its best in the measured series. That improvement comes alongside a modest gain in raw mention presence, from 92.9% in July to 94.0% in September.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces are driving the jump from August's 32.1% to September's 67.8%, and whether the improvement is uniform or concentrated in one or two AI surface families.

Trezor and Trust Wallet: Both post strong gains, closing near Ledger but not overtaking

Trezor closed September at 62.1%, up 40.8 points from May's 21.3% and up 33.2 points from August's 28.9%. Trust Wallet reached 61.5%, up 44.2 points from May's 17.3%, the largest baseline gain in the category, and up 34.6 points from August's 26.9%. Both brands trail Ledger but lead the next tier by margins of at least 11.6 points.

Trezor's top-three rate rose 15.4 points from May (14.9% to 30.3%), its rank-one rate rose 3.6 points (4.3% to 7.9%), and its raw mention presence rose 57.2 points (28.5% to 85.7%). Trust Wallet's top-three rate rose 17.3 points from May (8.2% to 25.5%), its rank-one rate rose 5.2 points (1.8% to 7.0%), and its raw mention presence rose 61.9 points (21.6% to 83.5%).

Both brands converted presence into placement in September, unlike August when their top-three rates lagged their presence gains. Trezor's 15.4-point and Trust Wallet's 17.3-point top-three improvements are both significant moves from baseline.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts now place these brands in top-three positions that did not in August, and whether the gains come at the expense of the same competitor across surfaces.

MetaMask and Exodus: Solid gains, still outside the top cluster

MetaMask rose 35.2 points from May (14.7% to 49.9%) and 26.9 points from August (23.0% to 49.9%). It holds the fourth position, 11.6 points behind Trust Wallet. Exodus rose 22.4 points from May (18.6% to 41.0%) and 20.2 points from August (20.8% to 41.0%), holding fifth at 41.0%.

MetaMask's rank-one rate rose 7.0 points from May (2.2% to 9.2%), reaching 63 rank-one placements in September. Exodus tells a different story within its coverage gain: its top-three rate fell 1.8 points from May (11.9% to 10.1%) and its rank-one rate fell 3.1 points (5.3% to 2.2%), both despite the overall coverage gain of 22.4 points.

MetaMask is gaining both coverage and position. Exodus is gaining coverage but losing ground within the list, a pattern that persisted from August into September.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which competitor occupies the top-three slots Exodus is losing, and which specific prompts account for MetaMask's rank-one growth since May.

Coinbase Wallet and Zengo: The middle-tier risers

Coinbase Wallet rose 25.7 points from May (7.4% to 33.1%) and 18.1 points from August (15.0% to 33.1%), now holding sixth place at 33.1%. Its top-three rate rose 8.6 points from May (2.8% to 11.4%), a significant gain, and its raw mention presence rose 35.8 points (9.5% to 45.3%). It recorded 227 valid recommendations in September.

Zengo rose 11.8 points from May (9.8% to 21.6%) and 11.0 points from August (10.6% to 21.6%), holding seventh place. Its gains are smaller in absolute terms but significant against both the baseline and the prior month. Zengo's net sentiment score of 0.903 in September remains among the highest in the category, close to its May level of 0.955.

Coinbase Wallet converts its strong presence gain into top-three placement; Zengo's gains are steadier but do not include the same top-three acceleration. Zengo's top-three rate of 5.5% in September is up just 0.9 points from May's 4.6%, a smaller shift than its overall coverage gain.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces account for Coinbase Wallet's presence jump since May, and which prompts mention Zengo with high sentiment but stop short of top-three recommendation.

The widening gap for the smallest brands

The notable pattern this month is divergence, not decline. Best Wallet rose 1.4 points from August's 1.2% to 2.6%, but its gap to Trust Wallet widened to 58.9 points, up from 25.7 points in August and 16.1 points in May. Best Wallet holds 18 valid recommendations in September. BlueWallet rose 5.8 points from August (5.4% to 11.2%), its largest monthly gain in the series, and Electrum rose 0.2 points from August (7.7% to 7.9%), essentially flat.

The smallest brands are gaining coverage slowly while leaders accelerate, producing a widening spread that is not a decline for the smaller brands but a difference in velocity. Best Wallet's presence rate rose to 3.4% in September, up from 1.7% in May, while the category leaders now exceed 83% presence.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Whether the widening gaps reflect genuinely different recommendation patterns or an artifact of the small absolute counts, which for Best Wallet (18 valid recommendations), Electrum (54), and BlueWallet (77) remain low.

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

In September, all 686 qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation cluster. The comparison and pricing clusters, which held 244 and 123 observations respectively in May, registered zero qualified observations in July, August, and September. The public benchmark can currently answer which brand AI systems recommend, but cannot yet answer price sensitivity, value comparison, or head-to-head preference questions for crypto wallets. Those commercial questions remain outside the scope of the qualified dataset this month.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the CiteWorks Studio AI Industry Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery
• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• September 2026 used 686 qualified observations from 800 collected prompts, a smaller denominator than May's 1,425 observations. Brand-level percentages are calculated within each month's qualified set.
• The July collection run marked a methodology shift from the May run. The trend series from May through September should be read with the understanding that July's elevated coverage rates across all brands may reflect a different question mix or surface distribution than May or August.
• August's across-the-board pullback from July levels, followed by September's recovery, is treated as a directional signal. Month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.
• Best Wallet, BlueWallet, and Electrum have small absolute valid recommendation counts in September (18, 77, and 54 respectively). Their percentages should be interpreted with that small-count caveat in mind.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages raise questions that the public benchmark cannot answer. Which high-intent prompts is a brand winning, and which does it lose? When a brand is not recommended, which competitor takes the slot? What attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers? For a brand like Exodus, whose coverage rose 22.4 points from May but whose top-three rate fell, the public data shows the symptom but not the mechanism.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It identifies which surfaces matter most for a given brand, which prompts are winnable, and which competitor moves require a response.

Request an AI visibility audit