BNY Digital Asset Custody vs Fireblocks
How BNY Digital Asset Custody vs Fireblocks compare on our ratings, custodian specs, funding, pros and cons.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 3.2/5 | 4.3/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Security | 3.5 | 4.0 |
| Compliance | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Asset support | 1.5 | 5.0 |
| Features | 2.5 | 4.5 |
| Support | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Specs | ||
| Custody model | Qualified custodian, MPC | Qualified custodian, MPC, HSM, Self-custody software |
| Clients | Institutions, Funds, Corporates | Institutions, Funds, Corporates |
| Regulated | Yes | Yes |
| SOC 2 report | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Insurance | Parent-company insurance for events such as theft or fraud, shared across all custody clients; excludes market losses (MSBT prospectus, 2026) | Not disclosed |
| Staking | Not disclosed | Yes |
| API access | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Licenses & charters | NYDFS state bank charter, Federal Reserve member (US), NBB MiCA crypto custody notification (Belgium) | NYDFS limited purpose trust charter (US), FinCEN MSB registration (US), State money transmitter licenses in 37 states and DC (US) |
| MPC | Yes | Yes |
| Cold storage | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Qualified custodian | Yes | Yes |
| Company | ||
| Founded | 1784 | — |
| Headquarters | United States | United States |
| Investors | Not disclosed | D1 Capital Partners, Spark Capital |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | Asset managers and ETF sponsors that already use BNY for fund services, EU banks and broker-dealers that want a bank custodian listed under MiCA, Corporate treasuries holding bitcoin, ether, Solana or USDC | Exchanges and payment companies building in-house custody, Funds and RIAs that need a New York qualified custodian, Fintechs launching embedded or white-label wallets |
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.

