<p>Adding to Murch's response and comments, Coinomi does have UTXO control where you can set individual UTXOs as "do not spend" and indirectly control which ones will be used on your transaction. Number and type of inputs in a transaction is one parameters that influence the transaction size (and thus the fees) the most.</p>

<p>Unless you change a privacy option in Coinomi's settings, all change of your transactions is sent to a bech32 address. This contributes to smaller transactions. If you are having higher fees with Coinomi, most likely you have a larger number of small UTXOs, causing the final transaction size to be larger.</p>

<p>Full coin control at the time of sending is a feature planned for the future. Details for how to manage UTXOs in Coinomi can be found here: <a href="https://coinomi.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/29000030928-managing-your-utxos" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://coinomi.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/29000030928-managing-your-utxos</a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-21T23:47:00.823Z
2020-05-21T23:47:00.823Z
Fer Coinomi
<p>Given that you are looking at two different wallets on two different pieces of software, the transactions that the wallets are proposing are different:</p>

<ul>
<li>they may be using a different count of inputs</li>
<li>one may be using segwit inputs while the other uses non-segwit</li>
<li>one might be a multisig wallet while the other is single-sig </li>
<li>one of them might be able to avoid a change output, while the other doesn't</li>
</ul>

<p>This will cause the two transactions to have a differing size. Lastly, the two wallets may be using different price sources to translate it to dollars.</p>

<p>As the transactions' priority is determined by their fee rate, both of these transactions are equivalently prioritized at 200 sat/B. The size difference is unlikely to make a big difference for block inclusion.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-20T20:45:04.040Z
Am I understanding correctly that the price different is due to the difference in size of the transaction being created? If so, can part of the size difference be due to one wallet being more efficient - or is that not possible?
kayan1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-20T22:18:40.150Z
@kayan1 It is difficult to say for certain about your specific case without more info. A wallet *can* be more efficient if it: utilizes UTXOs efficiently, uses native segwit addresses, etc. But it could also just be a result of the UTXO set the wallet controls. If you are worried about the details like this, you could consider using a wallet that allows for manual UTXO selection.
chytrik
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-21T09:29:34.253Z
@chytrik. Thanks for explaining. I'm not really worried but just wanted to know why this would occur. I think the only wallet that lets manual UTXO selection would be Wasabi, right? I think Moonshine wallet also has some sort of coin control option.
kayan1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-20T19:55:06.147Z
2020-05-20T19:55:06.147Z
Murch
<p>I was looking at two Bitcoin wallets, Coinomi and Edge.
When setting the same custom fee for both, I see a difference in the final fee reported. 
As an example, Edge wallet shows a fee of $3.13 (at 200 sats/Byte), while Coinomi shows $4.85.
I'm using the same destination address and amount for both.</p>

<p>Can someone explain this difference in fee?
Will the higher price Coinomi transaction be confirmed in fewer blocks? 
Have you come across this before?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<wallet><transaction-fees><fee-estimation><coinomi>
Explain Coinomi and Edge fee difference?
kayan1
# Explain Coinomi and Edge fee difference?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-20)

I was looking at two Bitcoin wallets, username_1 and Edge.
When setting the same custom fee for both, I see a difference in the final fee reported.
As an example, Edge wallet shows a fee of $3.13 (at 200 sats/Byte), while username_1 shows $4.85.
I'm using the same destination address and amount for both.

Can someone explain this difference in fee?
Will the higher price username_1 transaction be confirmed in fewer blocks?
Have you come across this before?

Thanks.

**Tags:** wallet, transaction-fees, fee-estimation, coinomi


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-05-21. Score: 2

Adding to username_2's response and comments, username_1 does have UTXO control where you can set individual UTXOs as "do not spend" and indirectly control which ones will be used on your transaction. Number and type of inputs in a transaction is one parameters that influence the transaction size (and thus the fees) the most.

Unless you change a privacy option in username_1's settings, all change of your transactions is sent to a bech32 address. This contributes to smaller transactions. If you are having higher fees with username_1, most likely you have a larger number of small UTXOs, causing the final transaction size to be larger.

Full coin control at the time of sending is a feature planned for the future. Details for how to manage UTXOs in username_1 can be found here: <https://username_1.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/29000030928-managing-your-utxos>


---

### Answer by username_2 on 2020-05-20. Score: 2

Given that you are looking at two different wallets on two different pieces of software, the transactions that the wallets are proposing are different:

* they may be using a different count of inputs
* one may be using segwit inputs while the other uses non-segwit
* one might be a multisig wallet while the other is single-sig
* one of them might be able to avoid a change output, while the other doesn't

This will cause the two transactions to have a differing size. Lastly, the two wallets may be using different price sources to translate it to dollars.

As the transactions' priority is determined by their fee rate, both of these transactions are equivalently prioritized at 200 sat/B. The size difference is unlikely to make a big difference for block inclusion.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Am I understanding correctly that the price different is due to the difference in size of the transaction being created? If so, can part of the size difference be due to one wallet being more efficient - or is that not possible?  
> **username_3**: @username_0 It is difficult to say for certain about your specific case without more info. A wallet *can* be more efficient if it: utilizes UTXOs efficiently, uses native segwit addresses, etc. But it could also just be a result of the UTXO set the wallet controls. If you are worried about the details like this, you could consider using a wallet that allows for manual UTXO selection.  
> **username_0**: @username_3. Thanks for explaining. I'm not really worried but just wanted to know why this would occur. I think the only wallet that lets manual UTXO selection would be Wasabi, right? I think Moonshine wallet also has some sort of coin control option.  

---

