21shares vs Digital Ascension Group

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

Feature	21shares Visit	Digital Ascension Group Visit
Ratings
Our score	4.2/5	3.3/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Track record & size	4.5	3.0
Product range	5.0	4.0
Fees	3.5	2.5
Regulation & custody	4.0	4.0
Transparency	4.0	3.0
Specs
Products	Spot ETFs, ETPs / ETNs, Index funds, Staking products	Private funds, Managed accounts, Crypto IRAs, Staking products
Clients	Retail, Institutions, Financial advisors	Accredited investors, Institutions, Financial advisors
Assets under management	$11.3B	Not disclosed
Flagship products	CBTC, ETHC, CSOL, ABBA, BOLD, HODLX	DAG Wealth, Institutional Bitcoin SMA, Income Fund, Growth Fund
Assets covered	BTC, ETH, SOL, XRP, HYPE, SUI, DOGE, DOT	BTC, XRP, FLR, SGB, XDC
Fees	0.10% to 1.49% p.a.	Disclosed in Form ADV Part 2A prior to engagement
Regulators	Not disclosed	SEC
Company
Founded	2018	2020
Headquarters	Switzerland	United States
Investors	Not disclosed	Not disclosed
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	Registered with the SEC as an investment adviser under CRD No. 328627 Uses independent qualified custodians rather than commingled firm custody Coordinates entity formation, trust design, and wealth management in-house Offers dedicated institutional Bitcoin separately managed account strategies
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	Services are tailored to United States clients and accredited wealth levels Advisory fee schedules require direct engagement and Form ADV review Entity structures like Wyoming LLCs do not eliminate federal income taxes FTSO delegation yield depends on third-party oracle performance and network rules
Best for	Traditional brokerage investors avoiding self-custody, European wealth managers balancing crypto portfolios, Allocators seeking exchange-listed staking exposure	US crypto founders and high-net-worth holders, Investors seeking Wyoming crypto LLC structuring, RIAs needing institutional crypto sub-advisory

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.