PROVIDERS 139 3 NEW CATEGORIES 28 28 ACTIVE SERVICES 304 15 NEW ODD 2 1.4% USERS 563 2 NEW AVG:RATING 3.7 0 RECENT VIEWS:TODAY 18 1 LAST HR INTROS 4 0 7D TOP:CATEGORY OTC DESK 66 ACTIVE:NOW 0 USERS
COUNTERPARTY CATALOGUE
Digital Asset Infrastructure

13 Leading Custody Technology Providers Compared (2025)

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
*All Licenses & Certifications have been verified by DigOpp where possible
**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

MPI: Money Services Business (MSB) license from various states
OCC Charter: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency national banking charter (US)
BitLicense: New York State Department of Financial Services virtual currency license
SPBD: Special Purpose Depository Institution (various US states)
ATS: Alternative Trading System license
FSP: Financial Services Provider license
TCSP: Trust or Company Service Provider license
VASP: Virtual Asset Service Provider license
MiCA: Markets in Crypto-Assets regulation compliance (EU)
VQF: Self-Regulatory Organization for Financial Services license (Switzerland)
SD Custodian: South Dakota Custodial Trust Company charter
DASP: Digital Asset Service Provider license

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.

Related Custody Comparisons