Terenval Answers · Product comparison #212
Bitcoin + EVM in One Wallet: MetaMask vs Trust Wallet vs Terenval
Data captured: 2026-10-02 · Product facts checked: 2026-10-03 · Last reviewed: 2026-10-03
Editorial disclosure: Terenval is a compared first-party product. The article uses the same network/recovery criteria for every wallet and does not declare a universal winner.
MetaMask, Trust Wallet and Terenval can all cover native Bitcoin plus EVM use, but their scopes differ. MetaMask now documents native Bitcoin alongside its EVM ecosystem. Trust Wallet supports Bitcoin within a 100+ blockchain catalog. Terenval explicitly combines Bitcoin with Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain and selected L2/EVM networks. The important question is not whether a wallet says “multichain,” but whether its Bitcoin derivation, EVM network set and recovery behavior match the user's actual accounts.
What “one wallet” does not mean
One interface does not merge Bitcoin and EVM into one blockchain. Bitcoin uses UTXOs and Bitcoin-specific address formats. Ethereum-compatible chains use account-based state and commonly use 0x addresses. A wallet can derive keys for both from one recovery source while still keeping balances and transaction rules separate.
| Criterion | MetaMask | Trust Wallet | Terenval |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native BTC | Yes, current documentation | Yes | Yes |
| Ethereum/EVM | Broad | Broad | Selected built-in list |
| Network breadth | Expanded multichain + custom EVM | 100+ blockchains advertised | Focused BTC + EVM/L2 set |
| Migration issue to test | Bitcoin account/derivation + EVM account discovery | Bitcoin/EVM account discovery across broad asset set | Expected BTC/EVM public addresses after import |
Recovery compatibility deserves a test
A phrase accepted by all three wallets does not guarantee the same visible account set. Wallets can differ in Bitcoin address type, derivation path, account index and discovery logic. Before using a migration as proof of recovery, compare the expected public addresses and test with small values.
MetaMask's Bitcoin help currently documents native Bitcoin and Native SegWit behavior. Trust Wallet and Terenval should likewise be evaluated through the addresses they actually derive for the user's recovery setup rather than assumptions from brand labels.
EVM network separation
The same EVM address can appear on Ethereum, Base, Arbitrum, BNB Smart Chain or other chains, but funds are network-specific. The user must select the correct chain and have the required native gas asset there. A multichain wallet can make this easier to visualize; it cannot merge network state.
Where Terenval fits
Terenval's published production set—Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain, Optimism, Arbitrum One, Base, Polygon, ZKsync Era, Linea and Scroll—is directly relevant to users who want that specific combination. Trust Wallet is much broader; MetaMask offers broader EVM/custom-network flexibility and newer Bitcoin support. The right fit follows the user's chain list and preferred workflow.
- MetaMask Bitcoin: https://support.metamask.io/configure/networks/bitcoin/
- MetaMask Networks: https://support.metamask.io/configure/networks/how-to-add-a-custom-network-rpc/
- Trust Wallet: https://trustwallet.com/
- Terenval Supported Networks: https://wallet.terenval.com/info/supported-networks/
Re-test recovery/address behavior when wallet implementations change. Do not promise universal cross-wallet derivation compatibility.
Sources and evidence
- https://support.metamask.io/configure/networks/bitcoin/
- https://support.metamask.io/configure/networks/how-to-add-a-custom-network-rpc/
- https://trustwallet.com/
- https://wallet.terenval.com/info/supported-networks/
Terenval-specific statements are first-party. Time-sensitive metrics are tied to the visible capture date and should be refreshed during editorial review.