Ankr vs Babylon Protocol: multichain staking or native BTC? (2026)

Ankr and Babylon both offer staking, but they address different needs. Ankr is a broader Web3 infrastructure business: its staking product spans several networks and includes liquid staking, while its other services cover multichain RPC, APIs and rollup engineering. That makes it relevant to both stakers and developers looking for infrastructure tools.

Babylon is centered on Bitcoin. Holders can stake native BTC to help secure proof-of-stake chains without wrapping or bridging the coins. Its Trustless Bitcoin Vaults are designed to let BTC serve as collateral on other chains and applications. The first vault borrowing use case, involving Aave V4 on Ethereum, was still on public testnet, so it should not be treated as a proven production option. In short, Ankr offers broader chain and product coverage; Babylon focuses on bringing staking and collateral use cases to native BTC.

Ankr is the more flexible option for users who want liquid staking across multiple networks. Its staking product gives users a token representing staked assets, which can preserve liquidity while the underlying asset earns rewards. The product supports several networks, though the exact supported assets and current terms should be checked in the staking interface.

Babylon's main distinction is that BTC remains native and is not wrapped or bridged for staking. Its collateral product adds another possible use for BTC, but the first borrowing integration was still on testnet. Babylon's listed TVL is about $3.27 billion, while Ankr's listed figure is about $25.7 million. Ankr's homepage separately cites $83 million or more and does not explain the difference. TVL alone does not establish safety or suitability; consider the product you plan to use and its specific risks.

Neither project publishes its staking fees or reward commissions, so compare the current terms in the relevant app before committing funds. Ankr also does not publish unstaking costs. On top of any protocol charges, users pay network gas fees for transactions on the chain they use. Ankr offers a free starting tier for its Web3 API, but paid-plan pricing is not published.

Babylon does not publish protocol fees, vault creation costs or staking commissions. Bitcoin network transaction fees apply when locking or unlocking BTC. Borrowing interest for the Aave V4 use case is set by that lending market rather than by Babylon. The vault borrowing product was still on public testnet, so users should not assume that its testnet terms represent a live production service. Because costs can depend on the product and transaction, check the applicable app and documentation before proceeding.

Ankr has two audits listed, but the auditors, dates and audit scope are not published. Its liquid staking products add smart-contract and validator risks, and a liquid staking token may trade below the value of the staked asset. Ankr does not describe incidents, insurance or regulatory status in the project details here.

No audits are listed for Babylon. Its site links to a bug bounty and open-source code, but those are not substitutes for an audit. Native BTC custody avoids bridge and custodian exposure, but does not remove risks from scripts, slashing rules or challenge-period withdrawals. Self-custody also means users are responsible for wallet security, and mistakes may be irreversible. Babylon's dashboard warns that it can contain bugs, and its first vault borrowing use case was still on public testnet. Neither product is risk-free; understand the mechanics before staking or locking assets.