Holdfast · Comparisons
Holdfast sits in a small category alongside other zero-knowledge digital estate vaults and dead man's switch services. The pages below compare Holdfast against each named competitor on encryption model, trigger logic, recipient experience, jurisdiction, and pricing. Where a competitor is genuinely better for a use case, we say so.
New · Category overview
An orientation page for the category as a whole. Six products on the same five axes (encryption, trigger, recipient flow, jurisdiction, pricing), with honest credit where each is genuinely strongest. The fastest way to see how the products in this space actually differ.
Each link below opens a complete head-to-head comparison. Every page is written against the named competitor's own published material, verified on the date it was written, and honest about where each competitor is the better fit for a particular use case. If anything has moved since publication, we would rather know than not. Please get in touch.
Both products use end-to-end encryption to deliver information after a triggering event. Where they differ: trigger model, recipient experience, jurisdiction, and how the encryption boundary is constructed.
Inheriti commits secrets on-chain via a Shamir-style split. Holdfast keeps secrets in a UK-jurisdictional zero-knowledge vault and delivers via authenticated email. The trade-offs cut in opposite directions.
DGLegacy is a long-running player in the asset-inventory category. Holdfast focuses on encrypted message and credential delivery with a dead man's switch. Closer cousins than competitors in some categories, distinct in others.
GoodTrust spans wills, life insurance, and digital estate in one product. Holdfast is purpose-built for the encrypted vault and delivery problem and stops short of legal-document drafting.
Everplans is the most established US player in this space. Holdfast is UK-based, zero-knowledge by design, and built for a different threat model. Where each fits depends on your jurisdiction and what you're trying to protect.
Both target the same problem: making sure someone can access what they need to. The architectural choices, recipient flow, and operational footprint differ in ways that matter.