This table provides a comprehensive comparison of digital asset custody technology providers. It highlights key technical features, security capabilities, and operational characteristics across leading custody platforms. Use this resource to evaluate and compare custody solutions based on your specific technical and operational requirements.
Digital Asset Custody Technology Comparison Guide
Modern digital asset custody relies on three primary technologies: Multi-Party Computation (MPC), Multi-Signature (Multi-Sig), and Hardware Security Modules (HSM). Each technology offers unique security benefits and operational characteristics suited for different institutional needs and risk profiles.
Key Technologies Compared:
- Multi-Party Computation (MPC): Fireblocks, Copper, Dfns, Fordefi - Distributed key generation without single points of failure
- Multi-Signature (Multi-Sig): BitGo, Liminal - Multiple signatures required for transaction authorization
- Hardware Security Modules (HSM): Cobo, Zodia Custody - Dedicated cryptographic hardware for key storage
- Hybrid Solutions: Cobo (MPC + HSM), Liminal (MPC + Multi-Sig), Zodia (HSM + MPC)
Company | Founded | Key Type | M of N Signing Policy | Policy Management Features | Blockchain Networks | Supported Tokens | DeFi Access | Exchange Integrations | Disaster Recovery | Off-Exchange Settlement | API Access | Certifications* | Licenses* | Insurance | Restricted Jurisdictions | Price | Price Based On |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BitGo | 2013 | Multi-Sig | Flexible (2/3) | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | INX, Bitstamp, Finery Markets | Internal, External | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 2 | MiCA, VQF, VASP, BitLicense, SD Custodian | ✓ | Sanctioned countries | Low | AUC |
Cobo | 2017 | MPC, HSM | 2/3 | ? | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | Bitget, Deribit | ? | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 1, SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001 | ? | ? | ? | Low | AUC/Volume |
Copper | 2018 | MPC | 2/3 | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | 9 Exchanges | External | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 2, SOC 2 Type 2 | TCSP | ✓ | ? | High | AUC |
Cordial Systems | 2023 | MPC | Flexible** | Flexible Admin Quorums | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | No | Internal | No | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 1 | ? | ✓ | ? | Varies | Client Needs |
Dfns | 2020 | MPC, Client Device Connectivity | Flexible (3/5 default) | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | Coinbase, binance, kraken | Internal, External | No | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2 (VERIFIED) | DASP | ✓ | ? | Low | Client Needs |
Etana Custody | 2013 | MPC | ? | ? | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ? | ✓ | ? | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2 | ? | ✓ | ? | ? | ? |
Fireblocks | 2018 | MPC | 2/3 | ? | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | ✓ | Internal, External | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2 | ? | ✓ | ? | High | AUC/Volume |
Fordefi | 2021 | MPC | Flexible (2/2 minimum) | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | No | Internal, External | No | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2 | ? | ✓ | ? | Medium | AUC |
Liminal | 2021 | MPC, Multi-sig | 3/5 | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | No | ✓ | Internal | No | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2 | ? | ✓ | Sanctioned countries | Varies | AUC/Volume |
MPCVault | 2022 | MPC | 3/3 | ? | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | No | Internal, External | No | ✓ | SOC 2 Type 2 | ? | ? | ? | Low | AUC |
Tholos | 2022 | MPC | Flexible** | Flexible Admin Quorums | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | No | Internal, External | No | ✓ | ? | ? | ✓ | Sanctioned countries | Low | Client Needs |
Utila | 2022 | MPC | Flexible (2/2 minimum) | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | Binance, ByBit, Kraken | External | No | ✓ | Soc 2 Type 2 | ? | ✓ | ? | Low | AUC/Volume |
Zodia Custody | 2018 | HSM, MPC | Flexible | Flexible Admin Quorums, Time- or amount-locks | Most Networks | Most Tokens | ✓ | Deribit, Bitfinex, BYBIT, LMAX Digital | Internal, External | ✓ | ✓ | SOC 1 Type 1, SOC 1 Type 2, ISO 27001 | TCSP, VASP | ✓ | ? | Varies | AUC/Volume |
**Cordial Systems and Tholos do not hold any key shares - users hold all the shares, making them true self-custody solutions. Other solutions, such as Dfns, offer flexibility, so clients can hold all key shares if preferred.
? indicates information not yet available or confirmed
Note: This comparison is based on publicly available information, direct provider communications, and information provided by the service providers themselves. Features and capabilities may change over time. Always verify current offerings directly with providers. This information should not be relied upon as the sole basis for custody provider selection. Last updated: June 2024.
Regulatory Licenses Explained
Frequently Asked Questions About Digital Asset Custody Technology
What is the difference between MPC, Multi-Sig, and HSM custody?
Multi-Party Computation (MPC) distributes private key generation and signing across multiple parties without ever reconstructing the full key. Multi-Signature (Multi-Sig) requires multiple signatures from different keys to authorize transactions. Hardware Security Modules (HSM) use dedicated cryptographic hardware to securely store and manage keys. MPC offers the highest flexibility, Multi-Sig provides transparency and auditability, while HSM delivers hardware-level security.
Which custody providers offer DeFi access?
Most providers including BitGo, Fireblocks, Copper, Dfns, Fordefi, MPCVault, Tholos, Utila, and Zodia Custody offer DeFi access. Liminal is the only provider in our comparison that currently does not support DeFi protocols. DeFi access allows institutions to participate in decentralized finance while maintaining custody security.
What certifications should I look for in a custody provider?
Key certifications include SOC 2 Type 2 for operational security controls, SOC 1 Type 2 for financial controls, and ISO 27001 for information security management. Most providers in our comparison hold SOC 2 Type 2 certification, with some also maintaining SOC 1 Type 2 and ISO 27001 standards for enhanced compliance.
How do custody technology pricing models compare?
Pricing varies from low-cost providers like BitGo, Dfns, MPCVault, Tholos, and Utila to high-cost solutions like Copper and Fireblocks. Most base pricing on Assets Under Custody (AUC), while some use volume-based or client-specific models. Consider not just cost but also feature set, security, and regulatory compliance when evaluating providers.