Fireblocks vs Tangany
How Fireblocks vs Tangany compare on our ratings, custodian specs, funding, pros and cons.
| Feature | ||
|---|---|---|
| Ratings | ||
| Our score | 4.3/5 | 3.7/5 |
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Security | 4.0 | 3.5 |
| Compliance | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| Asset support | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| Features | 4.5 | 3.5 |
| Support | 4.0 | 3.5 |
| Specs | ||
| KYC required | Not disclosed | Yes |
| Custody model | Qualified custodian, MPC, HSM, Self-custody software | Qualified custodian, MPC, HSM |
| Clients | Institutions, Funds, Corporates | Institutions, Funds, Corporates, Retail |
| Regulated | Yes | Yes |
| SOC 2 report | Yes | Not disclosed |
| Assets supported | Not disclosed | 250 |
| Staking | Yes | Yes |
| API access | Yes | Yes |
| Licenses & charters | NYDFS limited purpose trust charter (US), FinCEN MSB registration (US), State money transmitter licenses in 37 states and DC (US) | BaFin MiCA CASP authorization (Germany), BaFin qualified crypto custody license (Germany), BaFin PSD2 payment services license (Germany) |
| MPC | Yes | Yes |
| Cold storage | Yes | Not disclosed |
| Qualified custodian | Yes | Yes |
| Company | ||
| Founded | — | — |
| Headquarters | United States | Germany |
| Investors | D1 Capital Partners, Spark Capital | Not disclosed |
| Strengths and weaknesses | ||
| Pros |
|
|
| Cons |
|
|
| Best for | 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 | Banks and brokers in the EEA adding white-label crypto custody, Neobrokers and fintechs that integrate custody through an API, Stablecoin issuers and tokenization projects needing a MiCA-authorized custodian |
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.

