Provider at a glance
- Category
- Institutional Custody
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- fireblocks.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 52 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Fireblocks
MPC custody infrastructure
Institutional Custody
#8 Overall
Ranked #8 of 9 institutional custody in the published ranking
52
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Fireblocks right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?9/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?6/10 here; Fidelity Digital Assets scores 8
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?7/10 here; the category best is 9
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?1/10 here; Fidelity Digital Assets scores 3
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States.
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 Fireblocks cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Fireblocks?
- 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, Fireblocks Trust Company, LLC (US-NY, since 2024-08). Read 3 November 2026. Open the register
Alternatives to Fireblocks
Compare all 4- 6Fidelity Digital Assets16 points above · stronger on custody legal entity licence (8 against 6)68
- 7Komainu4 points above · stronger on insurance as written (2 against 1)56
- 9Copper3 points below · stronger on insurance as written (3 against 1)49
For your setup
Find out if Fireblocks fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Fireblocks 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 Fireblocks ranks #8
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.4 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
356+6.728.010#7/9Loading evidence…
307+6.727.09#5/9Loading evidence…
201+0.643.09#9/9Loading evidence…
159+4.324.09#1/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−4behind Komainu, #7
RobustnessHoldsacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 50–54 and stays #8
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 Fireblocks’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? 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Komainu+256#8 → #7
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Komainu+256#8 → #7
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? 1 → 4 on its ladder · passes Komainu+356#8 → #7
Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may? 6 → 4 on its ladder · Copper passes it−248#8 → #9
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? 7 → 5 on its ladder · Copper passes it−248#8 → #9
Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? 9 → 5 on its ladder · Copper passes it−448#8 → #9
Smallest climb: “Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?” 6 → 8 passes Komainu, #7.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? — 9/10, the category best
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? — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? — 7/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? — 1/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- The custody insurance programme is a total blank: a buyer can see the platform's price to the dollar before a sales call, but cannot see any insurance limit, basis, retention or exclusion for assets held at Fireblocks Trust Company on any page, before or after signing — and the rate card they can see prices the software platform, not the trust company's custody fee.
Competitive position
Where Fireblocks 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#9 / 96.0 of 20 · best 14.0
Published criteria#7 / 913.8 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 Fireblocks leads
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?#1 / 9
Where it trails
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?#7 / 9
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?#9 / 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.
Copper#9 of 9 · score 49 · 3.0 points behind
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
Copper leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?3 vs 1
Largest single reason Fireblocks is ahead: published criteria (+19.0 display points).Scenario cost: Copper has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Komainu#7 of 9 · score 56 · 4.0 points ahead
Fireblocks leads on
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?7 vs 4
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?9 vs 1
Komainu leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?2 vs 1
Largest single reason Komainu is ahead: availability (+15.6 display points).Scenario cost: Komainu has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fidelity Digital Assets#6 of 9 · score 68 · 16.0 points ahead
Fireblocks leads on
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?9 vs 5
Fidelity Digital Assets leads on
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?8 vs 6
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?3 vs 1
Largest single reason Fidelity Digital Assets is ahead: availability (+13.0 display points).Scenario cost: Fidelity Digital Assets has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 52 · gap 28.0Why Gemini Custody ranks above Fireblocks
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 28.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGemini CustodyGap share
Availability · 23% weight6.012.0−15.6, worse
Published criteria · 35% weight13.818.6−12.5, 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? · w3568−2.24, worse
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? · w3078−0.96, worse
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · w2016−3.20, worse
Net5280−28.0
Your scenario
Fireblocks 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 #8 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 6 · 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 7 · 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 1 · 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 9 · 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% (Fireblocks 7/10)Scored by Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · 20% (Fireblocks 1/10)
- Regulatory failure (Fireblocks 6/10): 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
- Fireblocks' public rate card (https://
www .fireblocks .com /pricing, fetched 29 September 2026): "Essentials Everything you need to get started $ 999 per month, up to 6 months" with "$1,000,000 quarterly outbound volume" and "Overage rate 0.20% Per transaction"; "Custom Pro, Enterprise or Enterprise+ plans Custom Starting at $36,000 per year"; add-on "Off Exchange Add-on From 3-30bps on AUC". This prices the Fireblocks software platform. No fee schedule for Fireblocks Trust Company, LLC custody is published on /pricing, /trustco or /regulated-entities, so a trust-custody buyer gets a cost anchor, not the custody fee.Fireblocks — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDFireblocks — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Vendor states the split and the entity precisely — 'In addition to offering an industry-leading software platform, Fireblocks has established certain subsidiaries that hold relevant licenses to engage in specific virtual currency business activities.
- Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- us
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- The scored custody product is held by a New York-chartered entity (Fireblocks Trust Company, LLC, NYDFS limited-purpose trust, 2024-08); the affiliated payments entity Fireblocks LLC is separately a registered Money Services Business with state money-transmission licences across U.S. states and territories (fireblocks.com/regulated-entities, 19 August 2026). The only geographic language found is a standard legality-based eligibility rule, not a market restriction: 'The information and services provided on the website are not provided to, and may not be used by, any person or entity in any jurisdiction where the provision or use thereof would be contrary to applicable laws, rules, or regulations. Some products and services described may not be available in all jurisdictions.' (fireblocks.com/terms-of-use, re-matched 19 August 2026). No vendor surface restricts which countries' institutions may become Trust Company custody clients; the software platform is marketed globally, but the custody licence footprint is US/New York only.
- CCSS level
- Not this entity: Fireblocks Limited holds Level 3 (certificate 9.0-CCSS.00001, certified 20 June 2026). The certificate is the platform company’s, as a qualified service provider; the ranked custodian is Fireblocks Trust Company.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 Fireblocks: 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 52, #8 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:fireblocks_custody:2026.10.18:ab70d998e7c9
Are you Fireblocks? 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.