Ledger Nano Gen5 vs Ledger Flex: Which Signing Experience Fits You?

Ledger Nano Gen5 vs Flex at a glance

Ledger Nano Gen5 was introduced as the lower-priced entry into Ledger's newer touchscreen generation. The device costs $179 at the current reference price and replaces the tiny two-button Nano experience with a 2.8-inch E Ink secure touchscreen. Flex remains a more premium model at $249 and uses a similarly sized 2.84-inch E Ink panel, but with significantly higher resolution, 16 grayscale levels and Gorilla Glass.

The similarity in display size can make the products look almost interchangeable on a specification sheet. They are not. A 300 × 400 monochrome panel and a 480 × 600 16-grayscale panel can present similar transaction fields, but Flex has more pixels available to render information and interface elements. That matters more during repeated transaction review than when the device spends most of its time locked in storage.

Ledger Nano Gen5 vs Flex security

If the question is strictly whether Flex has a fundamentally stronger core security architecture than Nano Gen5, the current specifications do not support treating the two products that way. Both use Ledger's ST33K1M5 Secure Element, both list CC EAL6+ certification, both run Ledger OS and both use secure touchscreens driven through Ledger's hardware security architecture.

That shared foundation matters because older Ledger comparisons often involved real architectural differences between product generations. A Nano S Plus and Flex comparison, for example, includes major differences in screen interaction, mobile connectivity and Transaction Check availability. Nano Gen5 moves into the same modern touchscreen family as Flex, narrowing the meaningful gap.

The Secure Element is the same class on both

Both devices currently specify the ST33K1M5 Secure Element. The Secure Element is designed to protect sensitive cryptographic material and keep private keys separated from the general-purpose phone or computer connected to the signer. Both devices also list CC EAL6+ chip certification.

This does not mean every physical property of the devices is identical. Flex has a more premium enclosure and Gorilla Glass. Nano Gen5 uses a lighter plastic chassis and scratch-resistant display glass. Those differences can affect durability and handling, but they should not be confused with a separate private-key architecture.

Both use a secure touchscreen

A major security advantage of Ledger's current touchscreen generation is that the screen is part of the trusted signing path rather than an ordinary display controlled entirely by the connected computer. The transaction information presented on that screen is therefore the data you should treat as authoritative before pressing the final confirmation.

This is especially important when malware changes a clipboard address or a compromised website attempts to substitute transaction data. A large software-wallet window on a laptop can provide useful context, but the independent signer screen remains the final place where the user should verify critical details.

Neither model eliminates the need to understand transaction prompts

Hardware cannot convert every arbitrary smart-contract interaction into perfect human language automatically. Both models support Clear Signing, but Clear Signing coverage depends on the transaction, Ledger's current decoding support and, when a third-party wallet such as MetaMask or Rabby is involved, whether the broader transaction path supports the required standard and metadata.

If the device cannot decode the transaction fully, some data can appear in a less human-readable form. That is not a reason to press approve faster. It is a reason to recognize that transaction assurance has decreased. TokenToolHub's Clear Signing guide explains why readable intent and private-key isolation solve different parts of the signing problem.

The biggest difference is the screen

Display quality is the strongest practical reason to choose Flex over Nano Gen5. Nano Gen5 uses a 300 × 400 monochrome E Ink touchscreen with scratch-resistant glass and an anti-glare coating. Flex uses a 480 × 600 E Ink touchscreen with 16 grayscale levels, Gorilla Glass and its own anti-glare coating.

The physical diagonal is nearly identical: approximately 2.8 inches on both. Flex therefore does not justify its premium by being dramatically larger. It just packs significantly more display resolution and a richer grayscale presentation into roughly the same physical signing area.

Why resolution matters for transaction review

A hardware signer does not need smartphone-level graphics to protect a private key. Transaction review still benefits from good typography, cleaner spacing and fewer awkward layout compromises. Long addresses, token symbols, network information and contract fields become easier to scan when the interface has more pixels available.

For someone who sends Bitcoin or ETH once every few weeks, that advantage may have little monetary value. For someone approving DeFi interactions daily, reviewing staking transactions or using the device for multiple accounts, every additional moment of friction is repeated hundreds of times. Flex's screen becomes a workflow feature rather than a specification vanity metric.

Nano Gen5 is not a return to the old Nano display

The term Nano can create the wrong expectation. Nano Gen5 is physically and operationally different from the older Nano S Plus and Nano X screen experience. It already has a large E Ink touchscreen and modern gesture-driven interface. A buyer choosing Nano Gen5 is not accepting a tiny two-button OLED solely to save $70.

That is why the value case is strong. You retain the current touchscreen signing architecture, Clear Signing and Transaction Check while accepting lower screen resolution and less premium materials.

Where the extra $70 actually goes

Construction and daily handling

Nano Gen5 uses a plastic frame and plastic rear shell. At 46 grams, it is lighter than Flex and remains easy to carry as an everyday signer. Its current dimensions are approximately 79.4 × 53.3 × 8.6 mm, so despite the Nano name it uses a card-like touchscreen form rather than the older USB-stick-style Nano body.

Flex weighs 57.5 grams and measures approximately 78.4 × 56.5 × 7.7 mm. Its aluminum frame gives it a more rigid premium feel while the Gorilla Glass display offers a more robust screen surface. Flex is slightly wider and heavier but also slightly thinner than Nano Gen5.

The extra 11.5 grams will not materially affect a backpack or desk drawer. The more relevant distinction is how the device feels after hundreds of interactions. A user who signs daily may appreciate the more rigid frame and higher-end display. A user who mostly keeps the signer in secure storage gains less from those materials.

Neither device needs to be treated like a smartphone

The hardware wallet does not become safer because it is carried everywhere. If you rarely transact, keep the device in a controlled location and use it when needed. If you actively use DeFi, mobile swaps or staking, then durability and portability have more practical importance.

The Recovery Key and Secret Recovery Phrase remain more important than superficial cosmetic damage. A scratched body can still sign. A compromised recovery phrase can compromise the wallet regardless of how pristine the signer looks.

Clear Signing is shared, but screen quality affects how pleasant it is

Both Nano Gen5 and Flex belong to Ledger's newer secure-touchscreen generation and support Clear Signing for compatible transactions. The goal is to convert supported smart-contract operations into information users can understand before authorization rather than presenting only hexadecimal calldata or an opaque hash.

For example, a supported token approval may expose relevant token and spender information. A supported swap can display clearer transaction intent. The exact details depend on the application and current Clear Signing support rather than merely the hardware model.

Flex's advantage is therefore presentation rather than a completely separate decoding engine. Its higher-resolution panel can present Ledger's interface with more visual detail. Nano Gen5 still receives the same conceptual protection but on a lower-resolution monochrome screen.

Third-party wallets add another dependency

Ledger devices can work with MetaMask, Rabby and other compatible wallet interfaces. However, when the transaction starts outside Ledger Wallet, Clear Signing depends on the wallet integration and whether the specific dApp transaction has the required supported metadata. A device that supports Clear Signing cannot force an unsupported browser-wallet transaction to become readable magically.

That means Nano Gen5 and Flex should behave similarly in capability when the same third-party wallet and contract are used. The visible difference should primarily come from the display. A fair comparison must therefore use the same account, wallet version, network, dApp and transaction.

Transaction Check is available on both

Transaction Check is another current-generation feature shared by Nano Gen5 and Flex. Ledger positions it as an additional transaction-security layer capable of identifying certain suspicious transaction proposals before the user authorizes them.

Do not interpret this as a guarantee that a transaction is safe. A transaction-security service can add another signal, but no automated check can prove that every new protocol, contract, token or approval is legitimate. The signer still expects the user to verify what is being authorized.

The significant buying point is that paying more for Flex is not required simply to obtain Transaction Check. Nano Gen5 currently includes it as well.

Mobile pairing: there is little reason to pay more purely for connectivity

Both devices support Bluetooth connectivity for compatible smartphones and USB-C for wired desktop use. Both also include NFC, which supports functions such as Ledger Recovery Key and Ledger Security Key workflows. For a buyer whose main question is whether Nano Gen5 can function as a modern mobile signer, the answer is yes.

That reduces another historical reason to buy a more expensive Ledger. Nano S Plus lacks Bluetooth, and older product comparisons often forced users to pay more for mobile convenience. Nano Gen5 already includes the wireless connection stack expected from the current touchscreen generation.

Pair the exact device you plan to use

A specification proving Bluetooth support is not the same as a successful pairing test on your own phone. Mobile operating-system versions, wallet software and permissions change. Before moving meaningful funds, pair the device with the exact iPhone or Android phone you intend to use and complete a harmless transaction.

Do not test only Ledger Wallet if your real workflow uses MetaMask or another third-party interface. Your acceptance test should reproduce the application path you will rely on after purchase.

Ledger Nano Gen5 vs Flex compatibility

Compatibility is broadly shared because both devices belong to the Ledger ecosystem and use Ledger OS. Current Ledger materials list support for hundreds of assets directly through Ledger Wallet and thousands of coins, tokens and NFTs when compatible third-party wallets are included.

Ethereum, Bitcoin, Solana, XRP and many other major ecosystems are supported through the appropriate applications and wallet interfaces. MetaMask and Rabby are also among the third-party wallet environments Ledger currently identifies as compatible with its hardware signers.

This means a buyer should not choose Flex because they assume it supports materially more blockchains than Nano Gen5. Verify the specific asset or chain you need, but the normal difference between these two products is not a larger chain catalogue for Flex.

Compatibility is an ecosystem property as much as a device property

A chain can be supported by Ledger hardware while a particular wallet feature remains unavailable. One asset may work in Ledger Wallet, another through a third-party wallet, and another through a network-specific interface. The correct question is not simply "does Ledger support this coin?" but "does my exact account, transaction type and wallet interface work with this signer?"

This distinction matters for DeFi, NFTs and less common networks. Both devices can protect the key while relying on external wallet software to construct and broadcast transactions.

Recovery options are almost identical

Both current devices include the traditional Secret Recovery Phrase workflow and a Ledger Recovery Key in the box. Ledger Recovery Key is a PIN-protected NFC backup card designed to provide another offline restoration route for compatible touchscreen signers.

This is important for the price comparison because a Recovery Key is not an accessory that Flex includes while Nano Gen5 buyers need to purchase separately. It is currently supplied with both models. Additional Recovery Keys are optional rather than required to achieve feature parity.

The Recovery Key does not remove the need to understand recovery

Convenience should not make backup architecture opaque. A wallet is ultimately controlled by cryptographic secrets, not by the physical signer itself. Losing Nano Gen5 or Flex should not destroy access to assets if an appropriate recovery backup remains secure and usable.

Before funding the wallet, perform a recovery test with a disposable seed. Initialize the device, record the public address, make a harmless transaction, reset the disposable configuration, restore the wallet and confirm that the exact same public address returns. Never learn this procedure for the first time during an actual device loss.

Optional recovery services should be evaluated separately from the hardware price

Ledger also offers optional recovery services for users who prefer an identity-assisted backup route. Those services are not required to operate either Nano Gen5 or Flex. A buyer comfortable securing a recovery phrase and physical backup can use either hardware device without converting self-custody into a recurring subscription decision.

Conversely, users who value additional recovery mechanisms should price them as optional ownership costs rather than pretending the $179 or $249 device price represents every possible backup strategy.

How to compare the two models with the same signing tasks

A good device comparison uses identical operations. Testing a basic Bitcoin transfer on Nano Gen5 and a complex Ethereum swap on Flex would tell you almost nothing about the screen difference. Use the same account type, network, wallet software and transaction whenever possible.

The methodology below separates specification evidence from hands-on measurements. Screen resolution, weight, construction, connectivity and security-chip information are currently published by Ledger. Latency, pairing time, subjective readability and exact transaction flows should be measured on the physical devices before being presented as independent test results.

Test 1: receive-address verification

Create a disposable wallet on Nano Gen5 and another disposable wallet on Flex. Generate an address using the same blockchain and wallet application. Compare the address shown by the computer or phone with the address displayed by the signer itself.

The test is not about which device generates an address faster. It establishes the habit of verifying the trusted screen. If you cannot comfortably compare an address on the device, that is useful evidence about readability for your own eyes.

Test 2: identical outgoing transfer

Send the same small asset amount using the same network and software path. Record how many screen transitions are required and whether the destination and amount are comfortable to inspect. Flex's higher resolution should be evaluated here rather than inferred from marketing photography.

Test 3: identical smart-contract action

Use the same supported DeFi interaction on both devices. Keep the software wallet and contract identical so Clear Signing coverage does not change between tests. Record what information is displayed and whether Flex's resolution materially improves your confidence or speed.

If the interaction cannot be decoded on either device, label the transaction as an unsupported or reduced-visibility case. Do not call one device safer because the test itself lacked comparable Clear Signing coverage.

Test 4: mobile pairing

Use the same smartphone for both models. Remove old pairings between tests if required, pair each signer and complete one harmless transaction. Record connection reliability and whether your real wallet application works, not merely whether Bluetooth appears in the operating-system settings.

Test 5: rejection

Create a transaction and reject it physically on the signer. Confirm that the wallet interface receives no usable signature and the transaction cannot be broadcast as approved. Hardware security includes the ability to say no reliably, not only the ability to sign.

Test 6: recovery

Using only a disposable wallet, record the original public address, reset the test configuration and restore it using the chosen backup workflow. The restored wallet must derive the exact same address. Then sign another harmless transaction to prove that restored key control actually works.

Ledger Nano Gen5 vs Flex price and total ownership cost

Nano Gen5 currently carries a $179 reference price while Flex is $249. The immediate difference is $70, meaning Flex costs roughly 39% more than Nano Gen5 before taxes, shipping or regional pricing differences.

Both currently include a Ledger Recovery Key, so a buyer does not need to add that accessory merely to obtain equivalent backup functionality. Both also include the necessary USB-C connection hardware for ordinary setup and charging.

The better ownership-cost comparison is therefore not "$179 versus $249 plus mandatory extras." Both arrive with a broadly comparable modern recovery package. The real question is whether you want to spend the additional $70 on Flex's screen and construction or put that money toward a second signer, durable seed backup or other part of your custody setup.

A spare signer can matter more than premium materials

For a high-value wallet, operational redundancy may provide more practical value than a better screen. If losing or damaging the primary device would create unacceptable downtime, a second compatible signer stored separately can be valuable. The wallet is recoverable from backup, but having replacement hardware immediately available reduces recovery pressure.

A value-focused buyer could choose Nano Gen5 and direct the $70 saved toward a broader backup strategy. A frequent signer could rationally choose Flex because readability is used every day while a spare device is rarely used. Neither choice is universally superior.

Recovery accessories should solve a defined failure scenario

Both products include Ledger Recovery Key, which means buyers already receive an additional PIN-protected NFC backup option beyond the traditional written recovery phrase workflow. That does not mean every owner needs several backup cards or every optional recovery service.

Start by defining what failure you are trying to survive. Device loss requires a usable backup. Destruction of one physical location requires geographic separation. Theft of one backup may require passphrase strategy or stronger physical controls. Forgetting where every backup was placed is an operational problem that buying more cards can actually make worse.

Recovery architecture should be simple enough that you can execute it correctly under stress. Whichever device you choose, test the plan before placing meaningful assets behind it.

Which one is better for DeFi and frequent dApp signing?

Flex has the stronger usability argument for frequent DeFi because DeFi generates more complex signing prompts than simple transfers. Token approvals, swaps, staking transactions and typed-data requests increase the amount of information users should review before authorizing the private key.

Both devices support Clear Signing and both can integrate with MetaMask or Rabby through compatible workflows. Flex's advantage is that the information is rendered on a sharper, higher-resolution panel. If you sign several contract interactions every day, this can reduce friction enough to justify the higher purchase price.

Nano Gen5 remains fully credible for DeFi. Its touchscreen is already dramatically more usable for transaction review than older compact Nano screens. A buyer who is careful with transaction verification does not become less secure merely because the screen has fewer pixels.

Do not confuse screen quality with contract safety

A beautifully rendered malicious approval remains malicious. Clear Signing helps you understand supported transaction intent, but the user still needs to know whether the protocol, spender and requested allowance are legitimate.

If a transaction hash from an earlier interaction needs deeper examination, TokenToolHub's Transaction Decoder can investigate supported EVM transaction evidence. It is an investigation tool, not a hardware-wallet benchmark and not a substitute for reading the signer before approving the next action.

Check your public address before resuming dApp activity

Moving from an older signer or software wallet into Nano Gen5 or Flex does not automatically clean up historical wallet permissions. The private-key storage method changes, but old approvals remain on-chain under the same address if you restore the same wallet.

Before returning to regular dApp activity, TokenToolHub's Wallet Risk Scanner can inspect supported public addresses for activity and risk context without requiring a recovery phrase or private key. Never enter a Secret Recovery Phrase into an online scanner.

If the wallet has years of DeFi history, review approvals and unusual interactions separately from the hardware upgrade. A new signer protects future authorization better; it does not erase previously granted smart-contract permissions.

Migration and exit constraints

Moving between Nano Gen5 and Flex is comparatively straightforward because they belong to the same Ledger ecosystem. If the same Secret Recovery Phrase, passphrase and derivation path are restored, the same blockchain accounts should be reproduced. Assets are not stored physically inside either device; they remain on their respective networks.

That portability means someone can begin with Nano Gen5 and move to Flex later without transferring every asset to a new address, assuming they intentionally restore the same wallet. The reverse is also possible.

Restoration and migration are not always the same thing

If the existing wallet was securely generated on another hardware signer, restoring the same seed onto a replacement Ledger can preserve addresses and DeFi positions. If the seed originated in a browser software wallet, importing that seed into Ledger hardware does not erase its previous exposure.

Users moving from an old hot wallet should consider generating a fresh hardware-based wallet and transferring assets deliberately instead of simply importing the existing phrase. Existing staking positions, liquidity positions, multisig roles and smart-account permissions may require separate migration planning.

The Ledger ecosystem itself is a dependency

Both models run Ledger OS and depend on Ledger-supported firmware and applications for their normal lifecycle. Choosing Nano Gen5 over Flex does not diversify that vendor dependency. If your goal is architectural diversification rather than model selection, compare non-Ledger alternatives.

TokenToolHub's Ledger alternatives guide examines that broader decision. For users specifically interested in a QR-oriented signing architecture, the Keystone vs Ledger comparison covers the trade-offs in more detail.

When Keystone or another signer makes more sense

Neither Nano Gen5 nor Flex is the correct choice if your core requirement is to remove Bluetooth and USB transaction transport from the normal signing path. Keystone 3 Pro, for example, is built around QR-oriented hardware-wallet integration and provides a large touchscreen with a substantially different connectivity philosophy.

That does not make QR signing inherently superior in every threat model. It changes the interface boundary. Users who specifically want an air-gapped QR workflow should compare that architecture directly instead of buying Flex merely because it is the more expensive Ledger.

Reasons not to buy either model

Who should buy Ledger Nano Gen5?

Choose Nano Gen5 when the price difference matters and you still want Ledger's current touchscreen generation. It is particularly attractive for someone upgrading from Nano S Plus or Nano X who wants much better transaction review without moving directly to premium pricing.

It also makes sense as a first hardware wallet for users who know they want Bluetooth mobile use, NFC-supported recovery features and Clear Signing but do not care about grayscale graphics or an aluminum frame. The $179 price keeps more of the budget available for a proper physical seed backup or spare signer.

For occasional users, this is likely the rational default. A hardware wallet may sit unused for weeks between transactions. Paying 39% more for a better screen is hard to justify if the screen itself is rarely used.

Who should buy Ledger Flex?

Choose Flex when the signer is an active part of your daily workflow rather than a device used only for occasional long-term-storage transactions. The higher-resolution 16-grayscale display makes the interface more refined, and Gorilla Glass with an aluminum frame creates a more premium physical device.

Frequent Ethereum DeFi users, active multi-chain users, treasury signers and people who review several transactions every day have the strongest justification for Flex. The extra $70 is easier to defend when every signature benefits from the better screen.

Flex can also make sense for buyers who simply prioritize physical build quality and intend to use the device for years. That is a legitimate preference as long as it is understood correctly: you are paying primarily for a better implementation of the shared Ledger touchscreen platform, not buying an entirely separate security tier.

Pre-purchase and setup checklist

Conclusion: Nano Gen5 is the value buy; Flex is the usability upgrade

The most useful conclusion from a Ledger Nano Gen5 vs Flex comparison is that buyers should not invent a security gap that current specifications do not show. Both devices currently sit inside Ledger's modern touchscreen architecture. They use the same specified ST33K1M5 Secure Element, the same CC EAL6+ chip-certification level, Ledger OS, secure touchscreens, Clear Signing, Transaction Check, Bluetooth, USB-C and NFC.

They also include Ledger Recovery Key, so Flex does not justify its premium through a backup accessory that Nano Gen5 lacks. Both can be used with Ledger Wallet and compatible third-party wallets such as MetaMask and Rabby. Both can act as everyday mobile signers. Both can display supported transaction intent on a trusted screen.

The buying difference is concentrated where it should be: the physical signing experience.

Nano Gen5 costs $179. Its 2.8-inch monochrome E Ink touchscreen uses a 300 × 400 resolution, scratch-resistant glass and anti-glare coating. The device uses a plastic frame and back and weighs 46 grams. It is lighter and less expensive while retaining the core current-generation signing functions.

Flex costs $249. Its 2.84-inch E Ink touchscreen provides 480 × 600 resolution, 16 grayscale levels, Gorilla Glass and an anti-glare coating. The device uses an aluminum frame with a plastic rear and weighs 57.5 grams. It feels and displays information more like the premium member of the pair because that is exactly where the $70 difference has been spent.

For most people buying their first modern Ledger touchscreen signer, Nano Gen5 is the easier value decision. The user is not giving up Clear Signing to save money. They are not giving up Transaction Check. They are not giving up Bluetooth mobile connectivity, NFC, MetaMask compatibility, Rabby compatibility or the included Recovery Key.

That makes the $179 model difficult to dismiss as merely a budget compromise.

Flex becomes more compelling as transaction frequency increases. Someone using a signer once every month experiences the better Flex display perhaps twelve times a year. Someone approving several smart-contract interactions daily experiences it hundreds or thousands of times. The same $70 premium can therefore be trivial for one user and unnecessary for another.

DeFi is where that difference becomes easiest to justify. Smart-contract approvals, swaps and staking interactions produce more complex signing prompts than a simple native-asset transfer. A sharper screen can reduce friction when the user actually reads those prompts.

The key phrase remains "actually reads." Neither Flex nor Nano Gen5 helps much if the hardware becomes a physical button that the owner approves automatically. Secure hardware works best when the user compares the trusted display with the action they intended to perform.

Clear Signing improves this process but does not cover every arbitrary contract. If the signer displays reduced or raw information, that is a different security state. Stop and investigate when the value involved justifies it rather than assuming a more expensive hardware model has somehow verified what it cannot decode.

The same discipline applies to recovery. The hardware itself is replaceable. The wallet is recoverable only if the controlling secret or supported backup mechanism remains secure and usable. Both devices include a Recovery Key and both support conventional recovery workflows, so whichever one you purchase should be tested with a disposable wallet before meaningful assets arrive.

Create the test wallet. Record the public address. Receive a negligible amount. Sign one transaction. Reject another. Restore the wallet. Confirm the same address. Sign again. That sequence proves more about your actual preparedness than simply owning expensive hardware.

Before returning an existing address to active dApp use, review its on-chain history separately. TokenToolHub's Wallet Risk Scanner can examine a supported public address without requiring the private key or recovery phrase. A hardware upgrade does not revoke old approvals automatically.

If you find an unfamiliar EVM transaction and need to understand what happened before repeating a similar action, use the Transaction Decoder as an investigation layer. The signer controls authorization; the decoder helps interpret existing transaction evidence.

If your concern is not the model but the Ledger architecture itself, compare other hardware approaches before purchasing. TokenToolHub's Ledger alternatives research covers other established options, while the Keystone vs Ledger guide is particularly relevant if QR-based signing is part of your threat model.

For readers who have already decided on Ledger, the choice can be reduced to one practical question.

Would you pay $70 for a significantly sharper secure screen, Gorilla Glass and aluminum-frame construction while keeping essentially the same core current-generation Ledger signing features?

If the answer is no, Nano Gen5 is the rational purchase.

If the answer is yes because you sign frequently enough to use those improvements constantly, Flex is the better experience.

FAQs

References and primary documentation

• Ledger hardware wallet comparison
• Ledger Nano Gen5 current product specifications and touchscreen comparison materials
• Ledger Flex current product specifications and touchscreen comparison materials
• Ledger documentation for Clear Signing, Transaction Check and third-party wallet compatibility
• Ledger documentation for Ledger Recovery Key and current touchscreen recovery options
• Trezor hardware wallet comparison for an independent alternative reference

Prices, firmware features, supported assets, wallet integrations and package contents can change by region or promotion. Verify the current product page before purchase. Clear Signing and Transaction Check add security signals but do not guarantee that a smart contract or transaction is safe. Never enter a production Secret Recovery Phrase into TokenToolHub, a website, browser extension or other online scanner. Hardware-wallet recovery testing should use a disposable wallet until the process is fully understood.