Anchorage Digital vs Ripple: Bank Custody vs Software

Anchorage Digital operates as a qualified custodian through a federally chartered U.S. bank, holding assets directly for institutions. Ripple delivers self-custody software, equipping commercial banks and fintechs with technology to control their own keys across more than 1,000,000 wallets.

The core difference lies in custody responsibility and licensing. Anchorage Digital Bank holds assets under an OCC national bank charter, New York BitLicense, and MAS approval, taking direct legal custody while providing USD fiat banking rails and prime trading. Ripple acts as a technology provider with Luxembourg CSSF and Brazilian VASP registrations, offering MPC and HSM key management tools alongside native settlement for the RLUSD stablecoin. Chain coverage also separates them: Anchorage supports 23 networks including Solana, Avalanche, and Cosmos, whereas Ripple focuses on the XRP Ledger, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and TRON.

Quick verdict

The deciding factor is whether your organization requires a third-party qualified custodian or software infrastructure to run in-house custody. Anchorage Digital holds your digital assets under federal oversight, which suits regulated investment funds bound by qualified custody mandates. Ripple licenses software that leaves cryptographic key control with your team, using MPC signing and custom transaction rules.

Choose Anchorage Digital if you require a qualified custodian with an OCC national bank charter, need integrated USD fiat accounts with wire and ACH rails, or manage assets across a broad list of proof-of-stake networks like Solana, Aptos, and Cosmos.

Choose Ripple if your firm wants to operate self-custody infrastructure without placing assets with a third party, needs Policy Engine transaction governance, or plans to clear workflows using the XRP Ledger and RLUSD stablecoin.

Feature
Ratings
Our score4.1/53.8/5
User ratingNo reviews yetNo reviews yet
Security4.04.0
Compliance4.03.5
Asset support4.03.5
Features4.54.0
Support4.04.0
Specs
Custody modelQualified custodian, HSM, Self-custody softwareSelf-custody software, MPC, HSM
ClientsInstitutions, Funds, Corporates, High-net-worthInstitutions, Funds, Corporates
Regulated YesNot disclosed
SOC 2 report Yes Yes
Staking Yes Yes
API access Yes Yes
Licenses & chartersOCC national trust bank charter (US), NYDFS BitLicense (US), MAS Major Payment Institution license (Singapore), NFA introducing broker registration (US)NYDFS limited purpose trust charter (US), OCC national trust bank charter (US), NYDFS BitLicense (US), State money transmitter licenses (US), CSSF MiCA CASP authorization (Luxembourg), CSSF electronic money institution license (Luxembourg), FCA EMI license and cryptoasset registration (UK), MAS Major Payment Institution license (Singapore), CBI VASP registration (Ireland)
MPCNot disclosed Yes
Cold storage Yes Yes
Qualified custodian Yes No
Company
Founded20172012
HeadquartersUnited StatesUnited States
InvestorsTether, KKR, GICNot 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
  • Keys stay in client-controlled HSMs or cloud, and Ripple cannot sign or access assets
  • Deployable on premises, in private cloud or hybrid
  • Bank users include BBVA, DBS, DZ Bank and Intesa Sanpaolo
  • Parent holds an NYDFS trust charter and final OCC approval for a national trust bank
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
  • Ripple Custody does not act as a qualified custodian
  • Coverage limited to 28 ledgers in Vault and 11 chains in Wallets
  • Staking support differs between the docs and Ripple's announcements
  • SEC case left Ripple with a $125 million civil penalty and an injunction
Best forETF 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-exchangeBanks running custody on their own HSMs, Fintechs adding white-label MPC wallets, Institutions tokenizing securities on the XRP Ledger

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.

FAQ

Is Anchorage Digital a qualified custodian?

Anchorage Digital is a qualified custodian through Anchorage Digital Bank, N.A., operating under an OCC national bank charter. Ripple is not a qualified custodian; it supplies self-custody software for institutions that manage their own keys.

Which blockchains do Anchorage Digital and Ripple support?

Anchorage Digital supports 23 blockchains, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos, Avalanche, and Sui. Ripple Custody focuses on Bitcoin, Ethereum, TRON, and the XRP Ledger.

How do their custody models differ?

Anchorage Digital provides third-party qualified custody via hardware security modules alongside an institutional self-custody wallet named Porto. Ripple supplies pure self-custody software using mobile MPC signing, Cloud Sign, and HSM modules so institutions retain direct key control.

What regulatory licenses do Anchorage Digital and Ripple hold?

Anchorage Digital holds an OCC national bank charter, a New York BitLicense, and a Singapore Major Payment Institution license. Ripple holds an Electronic Money Institution license from the CSSF in Luxembourg and a Virtual Asset Service Provider registration in Brazil.

More comparisons