Anchorage Digital vs DFNS

Anchorage Digital4.1/5

VS

DFNS3.5/5

Feature	Anchorage DigitalVisit	DFNSVisit
Ratings
Our score	4.1/5	3.5/5
User rating	No reviews yet	No reviews yet
Security	4.0	4.0
Compliance	4.0	2.5
Asset support	4.0	4.0
Features	4.5	4.0
Support	4.0	3.5
Specs
Custody model	Qualified custodian, HSM, Self-custody software	MPC, HSM, Self-custody software
Clients	Institutions, Funds, Corporates, High-net-worth	Institutions, Corporates
Regulated	Yes	No
SOC 2 report	Yes	Yes
Insurance	Not disclosed	$15M per year cyber, E&O and crime cover for DFNS itself (Beazley, Munich Re); DFNS holds no client assets
Staking	Yes	Yes
API access	Yes	Yes
Licenses & charters	OCC national trust bank charter (US), NYDFS BitLicense (US), MAS Major Payment Institution license (Singapore), NFA introducing broker registration (US)	Not disclosed
MPC	Not disclosed	Yes
Cold storage	Yes	Not disclosed
Qualified custodian	Yes	No
Company
Founded	2017	2020
Headquarters	United States	France
Investors	Tether, KKR, GIC	Not disclosed
Strengths and weaknesses
Pros	Custody at an OCC-chartered national trust bank, in place since January 2021 SOC 1 Type 2 and SOC 2 Type 2 reports, with SOC 2 examinations since 2021 Staking and governance voting on 20+ networks without assets leaving custody Atlas settlement supports off-exchange trading on Binance from custody	KPMG renewed its SOC 2 Type II report for 2024 with no exceptions noted Named third-party pentests and audits every year since 2021 Keys can run on MPC, HSMs, TEEs or bring-your-own-key, hosted or on premises Published pricing from $800 a year and a 30-day free testnet sandbox
Cons	No insurance policy for digital assets appears in its custody disclosures OCC consent order over BSA/AML deficiencies ran from April 2022 to August 2025 No EU authorization yet; the Irish MiCA application was announced in October 2026	Holds no license and takes no custody, so clients carry custody and regulatory duties The $15 million insurance is corporate cyber, E&O and crime cover for DFNS itself Marketing claims 100+ blockchains while the documentation names 59 networks
Best for	ETF issuers and asset managers that want a federally chartered custodian, Funds that stake or vote without moving assets out of custody, Trading firms using Binance with collateral held off-exchange	Banks and licensed custodians building in-house custody, Fintechs embedding wallets and stablecoin payments, Institutions that must keep keys in their own HSMs or data centers

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.

More comparisons