Provider at a glance
- Category
- Institutional Custody
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- copper.co
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 49 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Copper
MPC custody and off-exchange settlement
Institutional Custody
#9 Overall
Ranked #9 of 9 institutional custody in the published ranking
49
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Copper right for you?
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?3/10 here; Fidelity Digital Assets scores 8
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?3/10 here; Fidelity Digital Assets scores 7
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?3/10 here; the category best is 9
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?1/10 here; Fireblocks scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe, United States, Middle East & North Africa.
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 Copper cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Copper?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Copper
Compare all 4- 6Fidelity Digital Assets19 points above · stronger on custody legal entity licence (8 against 3)68
- 7Komainu7 points above · stronger on custody legal entity licence (6 against 3)56
- 8Fireblocks3 points above · stronger on insolvency survival mechanism (7 against 3)52
For your setup
Find out if Copper fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Copper 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 Copper ranks #9
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (8.6 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
353+3.368.010#9/9Loading evidence…
303+2.887.09#9/9Loading evidence…
203+1.923.09#4/9Loading evidence…
151+0.484.09#8/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Fireblocks, #8
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 46–51 and stays #9
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 Copper’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? 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Fireblocks+253#9 → #8
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? 3 → 5 on its ladder · passes Fireblocks+252#9 → #8
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? 3 → 6 on its ladder · passes Fireblocks+352#9 → #8
Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? 1 → 5 on its ladder · passes Fireblocks+452#9 → #8
Smallest climb: “Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?” 3 → 5 passes Fireblocks, #8.
Strengths
0 from the score dataWhere it leads
No scored criterion is at or within one point of the category best, so no strength can be stated from the data.
Tradeoffs
4 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? — 3/10 against a category best of 10/10
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? — 3/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Every document that would answer the category's core questions is unpublished: no custody agreement, no trust deed (the previously public ClearLoop English-law trust and its Bitfinex carve-out have vanished from the site), no policy terms behind the $500m headline, and no pricing — all while the company is in a reported sale process, its Liechtenstein entity has left the site (on 2026-09-29 copper.co/en-li redirects to the Swiss site; two of the three TVTG registrations of Copper Markets (Liechtenstein) AG expired 2026-07-02 under the MiCAR transitional period), and the ADGM register shows Copper Securities (ME) Limited withdrawn on 28 September 2026 while copper.co/en-uae still calls it ADGM-regulated.
Competitive position
Where Copper 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#2 / 912.0 of 20 · best 14.0
Published criteria#9 / 96.5 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 Copper leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trails
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?#9 / 9
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?#9 / 9
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?#8 / 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.
Fireblocks#8 of 9 · score 52 · 3.0 points ahead
Copper leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?3 vs 1
Fireblocks leads on
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?6 vs 3
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?7 vs 3
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?9 vs 1
Largest single reason Fireblocks is ahead: published criteria (+19.0 display points).Scenario cost: Fireblocks has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Komainu#7 of 9 · score 56 · 7.0 points ahead
Copper leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?3 vs 2
Komainu leads on
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?6 vs 3
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?4 vs 3
Largest single reason Komainu is ahead: published criteria (+7.0 display points).Scenario cost: Komainu has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fidelity Digital Assets#6 of 9 · score 68 · 19.0 points ahead
Copper leads onNo scored criterion
Fidelity Digital Assets leads on
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?8 vs 3
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?7 vs 3
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?5 vs 1
Largest single reason Fidelity Digital Assets is ahead: published criteria (+22.1 display points).Scenario cost: Fidelity Digital Assets has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 49 · gap 31.0Why Gemini Custody ranks above Copper
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 31.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGemini CustodyGap share
Availability · 23% weight12.012.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight6.518.6−31.5, 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
Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may? · w3538−5.60, worse
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? · w3038−4.80, worse
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · w2036−1.92, worse
Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? · w1519−3.84, worse
Net4980−31.0
Your scenario
Copper 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.RobustnessHoldsrank #9 across every one-point re-run
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 3 · 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 3 · 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 3 · 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 1 · 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% (Copper 3/10)Scored by Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · 20% (Copper 3/10)
- Regulatory failure (Copper 3/10): 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
- No published pricing exists. On 29 September 2026 https://
copper .co /pricing and https:// copper .co /en-li /pricing answer HTTP 308 to https:// copper .co /en-ch /pricing, and https:// copper .co /en /pricing answers HTTP 308 to https:// copper .co /en-us /pricing; both targets return HTTP 404 ("Page not found"). The Swiss homepage, the US qualified-custody page, the hold page, the security page and the disclosures pages carry no fee, bps figure or minimum and route buyers to "Talk to an expert" or "Book a demo". No number is quoted because none is published.Copper — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDCopper — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- RE-READ 2026-09-29: the Liechtenstein region is gone from copper.co (https://
copper .co /en-li answers HTTP 308 to /en-ch, and no page loaded names Copper Markets (Liechtenstein) AG, although the FMA register still lists its TT Depositary registration unexpired). The default contracting entity is now Copper Markets (Switzerland) AG, a VQF SRO member, and the ADGM register shows Copper Securities (ME) Limited withdrawn on 28 September 2026 while copper.co/en-uae still presents it as regulated. The August reading follows as history. MATERIAL CHANGE vs the live record (19 August 2026): Copper now has register-verifiable permissions, but no prudential charter anywhere, and the strongest one is a registration in a regime visibly sunsetting under MiCAR. - Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- europe, us, mena
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- A market-restriction structure, not OFAC boilerplate, and it shrank. copper.co now runs three regional sites behind a jurisdiction interstitial — "The products you are about to access are offered by Copper Markets (Switzerland) AG . By proceeding, you acknowledge and accept the change in regulatory jurisdiction." and equivalents naming Copper Markets (US) Inc. and Copper Securities (ME) Limited (copper.co/en-ch, 29 September 2026). The Liechtenstein region is gone: https://
copper .co /en-li answers HTTP 308 to https:// copper .co /en-ch and no page loaded names Copper Markets (Liechtenstein) AG. The Swiss site states "This website is intended for institutional investors with professional treasury management only." The UAE site still states "This website is intended for Professional Clients within the meaning of the Abu Dhabi Global Market Conduct of Business Rules, as amended.", but the ADGM FSRA register shows Copper Securities (ME) Limited (FSP 200039) "Status Withdrawn" with "Withdrawn Date 28 September 2026". The former UK region (copper.co/en-gb) still returns HTTP 404. - CCSS level
- Not on the register as read 15 October 2026 (absent from that page, not a finding that no audit exists)C4 completed CCSS audits register ↗ · 15 October 2026
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Copper: 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 49, #9 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:copper_custody:2026.10.18:ab70d998e7c9
Are you Copper? 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.