Provider at a glance
- Category
- Institutional Custody
- Entity
- All 2 BitGo products
- Official website
- bitgo.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 80 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
BitGo
Multisig and trust custody for institutions
Institutional Custody
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 9 institutional custody in the published ranking
80
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is BitGo right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?8/10; the category best is 9
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?8/10 here; Anchorage Digital scores 10
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?7/10 here; Zodia Custody scores 9
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?2/10 here; Gemini Custody scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best custodian shows where it lands for you.
What will BitGo cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is BitGo?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
- On the registersNYDFS trust charter: authorised, BitGo New York Trust Company, LLC (US-NY, since 2021-03). Read 3 November 2026. Open the register
Alternatives to BitGo
Compare all 4- 1Gemini CustodyLevel on score · stronger on pre sales price visibility (9 against 2)80$40
- 3Anchorage Digital4 points below · stronger on custody legal entity licence (10 against 8)76
- 4Zodia Custody9 points below · stronger on insurance as written (9 against 7)71
For your setup
Find out if BitGo fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where BitGo lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best custodianNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why BitGo ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (22.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
358+8.968.010#3/9Loading evidence…
308+7.687.09#2/9Loading evidence…
207+4.483.09#2/9Loading evidence…
152+0.964.09#7/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
MarginLevelbehind Gemini Custody, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 78–80 and ranks #1–#2
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of BitGo’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Gemini Custody+180#2 → #1
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? 8 → 9 on its ladder · passes Gemini Custody+180#2 → #1
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? 7 → 8 on its ladder · passes Gemini Custody+180#2 → #1
Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Gemini Custody+180#2 → #1
Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may? 8 → 6 on its ladder · Anchorage Digital passes it−276#2 → #3
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? 8 → 6 on its ladder · Anchorage Digital passes it−276#2 → #3
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? 7 → 4 on its ladder · Anchorage Digital passes it−376#2 → #3
Smallest climb: “Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?” 8 → 9 passes Gemini Custody, #1.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? — 8/10, category best 9/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may? — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The product BitGo is famous for is the one its insurance excludes: the $250m policy 'does not cover cases where the client or a third party holds some of the keys themselves' — so multisig self-custody, BitGo's signature offering, is uninsured, and payouts on the insured product are 'distributed on a case-by-case basis' with 'no guarantee that any payout will be made on a particular claim'. Meanwhile the marketing still says 'Full Unconditional OCC Approval' while the OCC's own letter and BitGo's own prospectus say conditional.
Competitive position
Where BitGo leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 914.0 of 20 · pool best
Published criteria#3 / 916.6 of 30 · best 18.6
Friction#1 / 92.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 93.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 98.3 of 18 · constant here
Where BitGo leads
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?#3 / 9
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?#2 / 9
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?#2 / 9
Where it trails
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?#7 / 9
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Gemini Custody#1 of 9 · score 80 · same score
BitGo leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?7 vs 6
Gemini Custody leads on
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?9 vs 2
Largest single reason Gemini Custody is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: BitGo has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Anchorage Digital#3 of 9 · score 76 · 4.0 points behind
BitGo leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?7 vs 3
Anchorage Digital leads on
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?10 vs 8
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?9 vs 8
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?5 vs 2
Largest single reason BitGo is ahead: availability (+7.8 display points).Scenario cost: Anchorage Digital has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Zodia Custody#4 of 9 · score 71 · 9.0 points behind
BitGo leads on
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?8 vs 7
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?8 vs 5
Zodia Custody leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?9 vs 7
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?4 vs 2
Largest single reason BitGo is ahead: availability (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Zodia Custody has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 80 · gap 0.0Why Gemini Custody ranks above BitGo
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 0.0 to within rounding. BitGo is ahead on availability (+5.2 in its favour).
DimensionThisGemini CustodyGap share
Availability · 23% weight14.012.0+5.2, better
Published criteria · 35% weight16.618.6−5.2, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisGemini CustodyPoints
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · w2076+0.64, better
Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? · w1529−3.36, worse
Net80800
Your scenario
BitGo is not priced for this scenario
The annual management fee on your balance. Excludes performance fees, spreads and any redemption charge. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your balance · your input$10k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 29 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory median and cheapestNot statedOnly 1 of 9 rows publish a comparable price; a median and a cheapest row need at least 3.
8 of 9 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 29 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #1 to #2 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 29 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?strength 8 · weight 35Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?strength 8 · weight 30Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?strength 7 · weight 20Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?strength 2 · weight 15Report an error—29 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? · 30% (BitGo 8/10)Scored by Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · 20% (BitGo 7/10)
- Regulatory failure (BitGo 8/10): no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.Scored by Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may? · 35%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Liveness failure, Custody failure, Execution failure, Exit failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? (15%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Not published. https://
www .bitgo .com /pricing returns HTTP 404 (re-probed 29 September 2026 with a browser user agent; page title "Not Found | The digital asset infrastructure company."). BitGo's FY2025 Form 10-K (filed 27 March 2026, fetched 29 September 2026) discloses only the fee types, in the same words as the January 2026 424B4: "We charge recurring account and custody fees, as well as transaction fees for certain movements of assets." No rate, tier, minimum or onboarding fee appears in the 10-K, the Q2 2026 10-Q or on any bitgo.com page loaded; no list price is published, so cost cannot be compared before a sales conversation.BitGo — official page at www.sec.gov ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDBitGo — official page at www.sec.gov ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- REGISTER-MATCHED, three regimes. (1) OCC: the decision letter of 12 December 2025 (occ.gov, loaded 18 August 2026) states 'The OCC hereby grants conditional approval of the Application upon determining that the proposal meets certain regulatory and policy requirements' and 'The Bank will operate under OCC Charter Number 25366. The Bank's main office will be located at 6216 S.
- Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- This is a market footprint, not an OFAC representation: the 424B4 states clients are 'in over 100 countries as of 30 September 2025' and 'Our principal markets are the United States and other major financial centers in North America, Europe, and Asia.' Regulated entities span US (OCC + NYDFS + FinCEN/state MSB via BitGo Technologies, LLC), Germany (BitGo Europe GmbH, MiCAR), Switzerland (BitGo GmbH), Denmark (BitGo Europe APS), Singapore (BitGo Singapore Pte. Ltd., MAS MPI), and Dubai (BitGo Custody MENA FZE, VARA). VARA register lists Licence Condition 'Permitted to serve Institutional Investors and Qualified Investors.' — a genuine eligibility restriction in that jurisdiction. No blanket geographic exclusion found on vendor surfaces; standard sanctions language not separately located.
- CCSS level
- Level 3: BitGo Bank & Trust Full Custody Wallet Service, certificate CCSS00008, certified 14 July 2026C4 completed CCSS audits register ↗ · 15 October 2026
Legal entity on file: BitGo, placed in 2 products. Only confirmed entities are shown; nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with BitGo: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
11 methodology entries
- 29 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 80, #2 of 9. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.7Forty-one more products are offered only where their own quoted terms serve- fixed 141 country exclusions on 31 rows, each the name of a country the row's own quoted terms exclude: for example Mercuryo Hungary, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Chile, Colombia and Morocco; Gemini Custody the United Kingdom, Australia and the EU after its wind-down; Backed xStocks the US, Canada, the UK, Australia, Nigeria, the Philippines and Venezuela.
- changed Thirteen rows list the only countries their terms serve: Coins.ph the Philippines, Spritz bill pay, Brex, Unchained, WisdomTree, Franklin BENJI and AnchorWatch the United States (with its territories for AnchorWatch), PRYPCO Mint the UAE, N26 crypto seven EU countries, Gemini Tokenized Stocks the EU, XNET the US, Canada and the UK, Coldbit Steel and MetaMask Card the countries they list.
- changed Published (no-country) orders do not move. Country results change: in India six categories each lose one row (bill pay, cards, off-ramps, P2P, seed backup, tokenised real estate), and bill pay there has no row confirmed available, so it shows the published order marked as such; country pages list 23 fewer rows (24,357 to 24,334). The grounding test now matches full country names in any case, which shows seven earlier exclusions were quoted all along: the named debt of unquoted exclusions falls from 40 to 33 pairs.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt institutional_custody:bitgo_custody:2026.10.18:ab70d998e7c9
Are you BitGo? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.