Provider at a glance
- Category
- Institutional Custody
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- zodia-custody.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 71 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Zodia Custody
Bank-founded institutional custodian
Institutional Custody
#4 Overall
Ranked #4 of 9 institutional custody in the published ranking
71
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Zodia Custody right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?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?7/10 here; Anchorage Digital scores 10
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?5/10 here; Anchorage Digital scores 9
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?4/10 here; Anchorage Digital scores 5
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Europe, Middle East & North Africa, Asia, Australia.
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 Zodia Custody cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your balance
- $10k
How safe is Zodia Custody?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
- On the registersMiCA: authorised, ZODIA CUSTODY (EUROPE) S.A. (LU, since 2025-12-12). Read 3 November 2026. Open the register
Alternatives to Zodia Custody
Compare all 4- 3Anchorage Digital5 points above · stronger on insolvency survival mechanism (9 against 5)76
- 5Coinbase Prime1 point below · stronger on insolvency survival mechanism (8 against 5)70
- 6Fidelity Digital Assets3 points below · stronger on insolvency survival mechanism (7 against 5)68
For your setup
Find out if Zodia Custody fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Zodia Custody 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 Zodia Custody ranks #4
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (20.3 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
357+7.848.010#6/9Loading evidence…
305+4.807.09#7/9Loading evidence…
209+5.763.09#1/9Loading evidence…
154+1.924.09#5/9Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−5behind Anchorage Digital, #3
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 69–74 and ranks #4–#5
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 Zodia Custody’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? 7 → 10 on its ladder · passes Anchorage Digital+378#4 → #3
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? 5 → 8 on its ladder · passes Anchorage Digital+377#4 → #3
Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? 4 → 10 on its ladder · passes Anchorage Digital+677#4 → #3
Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may? 7 → 6 on its ladder · Coinbase Prime passes it−169#4 → #5
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? 5 → 4 on its ladder · Coinbase Prime passes it−169#4 → #5
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? 9 → 8 on its ladder · Coinbase Prime passes it−170#4 → #5
Smallest climb: “Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?” 7 → 10 passes Anchorage Digital, #3.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? — 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? — 7/10 against a category best of 10/10
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? — 5/10 against a category best of 9/10
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? — 4/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- You are signing into an entity migration you cannot see the end of: the custody book is being folded into Standard Chartered's FSS division (offer accepted 18 May 2026, completion pending regulatory approval), the UK entity you would historically contract holds only an AML registration with no FSCS/FOS protection, and the only cost information you will get before sales is a Fee Letter mechanic with zero numbers.
Competitive position
Where Zodia Custody 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#5 / 915.2 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 Zodia Custody leads
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?#1 / 9
Where it trails
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?#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.
Coinbase Prime#5 of 9 · score 70 · 1.0 point behind
Zodia Custody leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?9 vs 3
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?4 vs 3
Coinbase Prime leads on
- Which legal entity actually takes my assets — and does its licence on the register say it may?9 vs 7
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?8 vs 5
Largest single reason Zodia Custody is ahead: availability (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Coinbase Prime has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Fidelity Digital Assets#6 of 9 · score 68 · 3.0 points behind
Zodia Custody leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?9 vs 3
Fidelity Digital Assets 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?7 vs 5
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?5 vs 4
Largest single reason Zodia Custody is ahead: availability (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: Fidelity Digital Assets has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Anchorage Digital#3 of 9 · score 76 · 5.0 points ahead
Zodia Custody leads on
- Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run?9 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 7
- If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor?9 vs 5
- Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process?5 vs 4
Largest single reason Anchorage Digital is ahead: published criteria (+7.5 display points).Scenario cost: Anchorage Digital has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 71 · gap 9.0Why Gemini Custody ranks above Zodia Custody
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 9.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisGemini CustodyGap share
Availability · 23% weight12.012.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight15.218.6−8.8, 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? · w3578−1.12, worse
If they fail, are the assets still mine — or am I queueing as an unsecured creditor? · w3058−2.88, worse
Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · w2096+1.92, better
Can I find out what this costs before I'm inside their sales process? · w1549−2.40, worse
Net7180−9.0
Your scenario
Zodia Custody 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 #4 to #5 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 7 · 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 5 · 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 9 · 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 4 · 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% (Zodia Custody 5/10)Scored by Is the insurance number mine, and does it cover the wallet setup I'll actually run? · 20% (Zodia Custody 9/10)
- Regulatory failure (Zodia Custody 7/10): 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 number is published anywhere on the vendor's site. The dedicated pricing page (https://
zodia-custody .com /pricing /, fetched 29 September 2026, HTTP 200) states: "Further information on the pricing and fee structure for services provided to you will be set out in the Fee Letter, which may be updated from time to time." It lists fee factors — "Account set-up and maintenance", "Account closure or exit management fees", "Transaction fees" — without a single rate, bps figure or minimum.Zodia Custody — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDZodia Custody — official pricing page ↗ · 29 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Vendor's own licences page (https://
zodia-custody .com /licenses-registrations /, loaded 18 August 2026) maps entities cleanly: 'Since 12th December 2025, Zodia Custody (Europe) S.A. is authorised and regulated as a crypto-asset service provider by the Luxembourg CSSF. Zodia Abu Dhabi, operating as Tungsten Custody Solutions Ltd (ADGM, Company No. 13952) is regulated by the ADGM FSRA. - Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- europe, mena, asia, au
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Two distinct kinds of language found. (1) A genuine market restriction: the site-wide gate states 'The products and services offered by Zodia Custody and its affiliates are exclusively available to institutional investors, including accredited or professional investors, in accordance with applicable law and regulatory requirements. These products and services are not intended for the general public or for retail investors.' (homepage modal, 18 August 2026), the ADGM register bars retail ('not permitted to deal with Retail Clients'), and the UK terms page carries a hard geographic wall: 'The materials and information contained in this section of this Website, relating to United Kingdom, are directed at and restricted to entities having a place of business in United Kingdom ONLY.' Licensed footprint per the vendor's licences page: UK (FCA MLR registration only), EU via Luxembourg CSSF CASP with passporting, Abu Dhabi (ADGM), plus a Hong Kong Trust and Company Service Provider licence now listed on the licences page itself ('Zodia Custody (Hong Kong) Limited is registered with the Companies Registry as a Trust and Company Service Provider, License Number TC009245, under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (AMLO), Cap. 615 in respect of its custodial activities in digital assets.', 29 September 2026) — an AML-regime registration, not a custody licence; Australia entity exists but is expressly unauthorised. No US licence or US client path found on any page loaded. (2) Separately, the terms page carries the standard sanctions representation ('Zodia Custody is obliged to comply with sanctions laws including those of the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union') — an everywhere-eligibility rule, not a regional footprint.
- 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 Zodia Custody: 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 71, #4 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:zodia_custody:2026.10.18:ab70d998e7c9
Are you Zodia Custody? 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.