Bitledger · Comparison
Bitledger vs. Blockpit: the same DeFi wallets, two results
Four wallets with liquidity pools, lending, cross-chain and liquid staking, imported into both tools under the same conditions. Here is what came out without manual work, which transactions were classified wrongly, and where Blockpit is the better choice. Bitledger was measured again after fixes; how it did on the same day as Blockpit is under the first table.
At a glance
| Bitledger | Blockpit | |
|---|---|---|
| Measured on | 29 October 2026 | 25 October 2026 |
| Test wallets imported | 4 of 4 | 3 of 4 |
| Correct in the sample (15 transactions per wallet) | 98.3% (59 of 60) | 44.4% (20 of 45) |
| Transactions recognised | 99% | not measured |
| Holdings match the chain | 2 of 4 wallets checked | not measured |
Rates cover the wallets whose chain the provider offers; a failed import counts as 0 of 15. Recognised transactions and holdings could only be counted where the free plan offers an export or its own holdings check; otherwise the cell says “not measured”. Bitledger on 25 October 2026, measured on the same day as the others: 61.7% (37 of 60) in the sample.
What Blockpit classified differently
| Transaction | Blockpit | Correct would be | Effect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bridge inflow (Across) to the holder's own address (wallet A) | Missing from the export | Internal transfer: the holder's own funds from another chain | – |
| EURe inflow from a third party (wallet C) | Booked twice: once under the new and once under the old token contract | One inflow of 50 EURe | CHF 46 |
| Withdrawal from Aave (wallet C) | Booked as a separate deposit and withdrawal | The holder's own deposit coming back, not an exchange | – |
Per wallet
Wallet A: Lending and borrowing on Aave, liquidity in and out, bridges to the holder's own address
| Bitledger | Blockpit | |
|---|---|---|
| Correct in the sample (of 15) | 15 | 6 |
| Transactions recognised | 100% | not measured |
| Holdings match the chain | yes | not measured |
Wallet B: Lending and borrowing on Aave with WETH, WBTC and stablecoins, swaps
| Bitledger | Blockpit | |
|---|---|---|
| Correct in the sample (of 15) | 14 | 10 |
| Transactions recognised | 99.5% | not measured |
| Holdings match the chain | no | not measured |
Bitledger: Holdings: ETH dust differs by USD 0.004; wrong in the sample: a spam airdrop booked as income (CHF 0).
Wallet C: Aave with a euro stablecoin, liquid staking (osGNO), cross-chain swaps
| Bitledger | Blockpit | |
|---|---|---|
| Correct in the sample (of 15) | 15 | 4 |
| Transactions recognised | 96.6% | not measured |
| Holdings match the chain | yes | not measured |
Wallet D: Cross-chain assets from Bitcoin, Ethereum and BNB Chain, LP tokens, liquid staking
| Bitledger | Blockpit | |
|---|---|---|
| Correct in the sample (of 15) | 15 | chain not supported |
| Transactions recognised | 100% | chain not supported |
| Holdings match the chain | no | chain not supported |
Bitledger: Holdings: −0.21 ZETA, one credit from the protocol is missing. Blockpit: The chain picker only offers Zetacoin, a different coin.
Features
| Bitledger | Blockpit | |
|---|---|---|
| Report for the Swiss tax return (CHF) | yes | locked on the free plan |
| Tax value at 31 December shown | yes | not measured |
| Price list of the Federal Tax Administration (ESTV) | Noted in the report, prices from CoinGecko | not measured |
| Note on professional trading (circular 36) | yes | not measured |
| Reason shown for every classification | yes | in the CSV export (internal rule) |
| Holdings checked against the chain | yes | not measured |
| Price for up to 1,000 transactions a year | not measured | not measured |
Where Blockpit is better
- Names, in the CSV export, the internal rule behind every classification.
- On 25 October, correctly recognised a one-sided liquidity withdrawal that Bitledger still booked as income that day.
All five tools side by side, and how we tested: The full comparison