21shares vs Amber Group

How 21shares vs Amber Group compare on our ratings, asset manager specs, funding, pros and cons.

Feature	21shares Visit	Amber Group Visit
Ratings
Our score	4.2/5	3.2/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Track record & size	4.5	4.0
Product range	5.0	3.5
Fees	3.5	2.5
Regulation & custody	4.0	3.0
Transparency	4.0	2.5
Specs
Products	Spot ETFs, ETPs / ETNs, Index funds, Staking products	Private funds, Managed accounts
Clients	Retail, Institutions, Financial advisors	Accredited investors, Institutions
Assets under management	$11.3B	$1B (June 2021)
Flagship products	CBTC, ETHC, CSOL, ABBA, BOLD, HODLX	Digital Wealth Management, Institutional Asset Management, Liquidity Solutions, Amber Labs
Assets covered	BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, HYPE, SUI, DOGE, DOT	Not disclosed
Fees	0.10% to 1.49% p.a.	Not disclosed
Company
Founded	2018	2017
Headquarters	Switzerland	Singapore
Investors	Not disclosed	China Renaissance, Arena Holdings, Blockchain.com, Coinbase Ventures +7
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Over $11B in assets under management across 48 exchange-traded products Physical collateral backing avoids direct futures roll costs on spot products Competitive management fees starting at 0.10% on core Bitcoin and Ethereum ETPs Trading via standard brokerage accounts on 13 regulated stock exchanges	Founded by former Morgan Stanley quantitative traders Raised $100 million Series B at a $1 billion valuation Handled more than $500 billion in cumulative trading volume by June 2021 Backing from Pantera Capital, Coinbase Ventures, and Tiger Global
Cons	Legacy and basket ETP expense ratios reach up to 1.49% per year Exchange-traded notes carry structural counterparty risk as collateralized debt obligations Restricted to professional investors in jurisdictions like Belgium ETP structures lack the independent board protections of 1940-Act mutual funds	No publicly listed retail fee schedule on its site Product minimum investment requirements require contacting sales directly Institutional services carry inherent counterparty risk Retail access is limited compared to conventional brokerage platforms
Best for	Traditional brokerage investors avoiding self-custody, European wealth managers balancing crypto portfolios, Allocators seeking exchange-listed staking exposure	Institutions needing market liquidity, Family offices seeking quant management, Web3 teams seeking infrastructure support

Highlighted cells show the stronger value in each row. Data comes from each provider's site and public sources; check details before you sign up.