Top 10 Crypto Custody Firms with Proven Security Frameworks

Institutional investors seeking the best digital asset custody provider for security risk management and compliance should first evaluate a custodian's security architecture, regulatory status, and incident record.

For global, multi‑chain operations operating under one unified platform, Cobo stands out with SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certifications, a zero‑incident history since 2017, and 3,000+ token support, all of which are ideal for enterprises balancing risk, compliance, and scale. For U.S.-regulated structures, Coinbase Custody, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Anchorage Digital offer strong trust or bank charters with robust insurance and governance. The comparison below highlights the 10 leading crypto custody providers shortlisted by institutions in 2025.

2026 top crypto custodians comparison table

• Asset support may be subject to onboarding, jurisdictional approval, and risk assessment.

• Insurance figures refer to aggregate commercial crime policies; scope, exclusions, and client eligibility vary.

1. Cobo

• Security: MPC, Custodial, and Cold Storage/HSM options with granular policies and audited controls for institutional crypto custody.

• Compliance: SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 independently validated for rigorous security governance per the Cobo evaluation guide.

• Assets & Features: 3,000+ tokens on 80+ chains, DeFi/Web3 support, and enterprise integrations across 500+ institutions.

• Track Record: Cobo reports zero security incidents since 2017, underscoring strong security risk management for digital‑asset custody.

2. Coinbase Custody

• Security: Cold storage, HSM key storage, and policy‑based approvals with segregated trust accounts for client assets.

• Compliance: NYDFS‑regulated trust company with SOC‑audited controls and institutional reporting for regulators and clients.

• Assets & Features: 200+ supported assets and robust APIs for trading, reporting, and treasury integrations at scale.

• Insurance: $320 M commercial crime policy; verify covered causes and claim mechanics for precise risk transfer terms.

3. BitGo

• Security: Pioneer in multi‑signature custody, now combined with MPC and cold storage for layered key security.

• Compliance: SOC‑audited operations with global trust entities supporting exchange and institutional integrations.

• Assets & Features: 700+ token support, plus Web3/NFT custody and policy engines suitable for complex workflows.

• Insurance: $250 M policy limit; institutions should confirm per‑asset limits, exclusions, and proof‑of‑loss requirements.

4. Fidelity Digital Assets

• Security: Cold storage with MPC‑enabled operational workflows, SOC 2 coverage, and round‑the‑clock service windows.

• Compliance: Operates under a New York State Trust Charter with institutional governance and risk oversight.

• Assets & Features: Institutional Bitcoin/Ethereum custody, staking services, and growing tokenized RWA capabilities.

• Insurance: Up to $1 B in coverage signals a strong backstop for large fiduciaries and asset allocators.

5. Anchorage Digital

• Security: MPC, hardware enclaves, and HSM‑backed processes with third‑party audits and continuous monitoring.

• Compliance: First OCC‑chartered crypto bank in the U.S., regulated under federal banking standards and examinations.

• Definition: An OCC‑chartered crypto bank is a federally regulated institution authorized to provide digital‑asset custody.

• Use Case: Strong fit for cross‑border institutions needing bank‑level compliance and clear U.S. federal supervision.

6. Fireblocks

• Security: MPC‑based key management with policy workflows, TEEs, and automated approvals for high‑velocity operations.

• Role: Widely adopted custody infrastructure for exchanges, fintechs, and asset managers powering secure transfers.

• Assets & Features: Broad multi‑chain support, treasury automations, and developer‑friendly integrations at enterprise scale.

• Note: Fireblocks provides technology; firms needing a qualified custodian can pair it with bank/trust custodians.

7. Gemini Custody

• Security: Segregated accounts, HSM‑based key control, and multi‑approval workflows integrated with the exchange.

• Compliance: NYDFS‑regulated trust with SOC 2 Type II; audit reports available to institutional clients on request.

• Assets & Features: Broad majors and exchange connectivity for streamlined funding, settlement, and liquidity access.

• Fit: Institutions prioritizing regulated custody plus direct exchange integration and operational simplicity.

8. BNY Mellon

• Security: Bank‑grade controls extending traditional custody governance and operational resilience to digital assets.

• Compliance: Operates under a U.S. bank charter with established risk, audit, and compliance functions at scale.

• Assets & Features: Integrated fiat/digital workflows and large‑institution reporting, initially focused on BTC/ETH.

• Fit: Global banks and asset managers seeking familiar trust frameworks and enterprise service‑level agreements.

9. State Street

• Security: Enterprise‑grade controls adapted from legacy custody, with cold storage and rigorous change management.

• Compliance: U.S. bank with established audit and governance; digital assets added via controlled program expansion.

• Assets & Features: Initial majors with roadmaps for broader support and integration into existing client platforms.

• Fit: Institutions wanting traditional processes, role‑based governance, and deep service integration.

10. Copper

• Security: Robust MPC implementation and segregated workflows designed for trading desks and asset managers.

• Compliance: Independent audits and a strong compliance posture; confirm regional licensing for your jurisdiction.

• Assets & Features: Broad multi‑chain support with connectivity that simplifies prime‑brokerage‑style operations.

• Fit: Institutions seeking fast settlement connectivity and policy control without sacrificing key security.

Key Security Features in Leading Crypto Custody Providers

Institutional crypto custody hinges on layered defenses across cryptography, operations, and compliance. The top providers combine Multi-Party Computation (MPC) or multi‑sig technology to remove single points of failure, air‑gapped cold storage or HSMs to protect keys, and audited controls to prove effectiveness. Insurance provides a last‑resort backstop, but its value depends on scope and exclusions. Established, reputable providers publish transparency reports, complete SOC/ISO audits, and offer granular policies such as withdrawal limits, whitelisting, and emergency pauses. The checklist below captures essential features that materially reduce risk for institutional digital‑asset custody.

• Cryptography: MPC or multi‑sig; TEE/HSM support for secure signing

• Isolation: Air‑gapped cold storage, offline key ceremonies, sealed backups

• Controls: Role‑based access, multi‑step approvals, velocity limits, AML

• Audits: SOC 1/2 and ISO 27001; third‑party penetration tests; red‑team drills

• Insurance: Crime policy; explicit coverage triggers; clear claim process

• Operations: Disaster recovery, geo‑redundancy, immutable logs, 24/7 monitoring

Multi‑Party Computation and Multi‑Signature Technologies

Multi-Party Computation (MPC) is a cryptographic protocol where multiple parties jointly perform private‑key operations without revealing their key shares, reducing single‑key compromise risk. Multi‑signature (multi‑sig) requires multiple independent approvals to execute a transaction, adding governance layers beyond single‑key control. BitGo pioneered institutional multi‑sig adoption, and MPC has since become a de‑facto standard for key management across leading crypto custody providers. In practice, MPC and multi‑sig both reduce attack surfaces and enable flexible policies using tiered approvers, location‑based rules, and quorum thresholds that align with internal risk management.

Cold Storage and Hardware Security Modules

Cold storage keeps private keys completely offline, eliminating internet‑borne attack vectors and reducing intrusion windows. Hardware Security Modules (HSMs) are tamper‑resistant devices that store keys and execute signing operations in protected hardware, preventing key extraction even under compromise. Top custodians use air‑gapped cold storage or HSM‑backed key ceremonies with strict access controls, a criterion consistently emphasized in analyst evaluations of crypto custody providers. Trade‑offs include latency and operational overhead; mitigate these with tiered wallets, robust backups, and disaster‑recovery playbooks.

Analyst perspective: see this custody provider guide by Fiat Republic.

Regulatory Compliance and Trust Licenses

A trust license authorizes a company to act as a regulated custodian of client assets, typically issued by state or federal authorities. For institutional crypto custody, SOC 1/SOC 2 audits, ISO 27001 certification, and trust or bank charters provide third‑party validation of controls and accountability. These frameworks enhance transparency, standardize risk oversight, and streamline due diligence. Institutions should request audit reports, confirm regulator coverage, and align provider scopes with their own compliance regimes, especially when operating across multiple jurisdictions and entity structures.

Insurance Coverage and Asset Protection

Digital‑asset insurance reimburses covered losses caused by theft, hacking, or dishonest acts arising from a custodian’s infrastructure, subject to policy terms. Real‑world examples include up to $1 B for Fidelity, $320 M for Coinbase Custody, and $250 M for BitGo; in parallel, regulatory harmonization such as Europe’s MiCA is shaping market standards for custody obligations and disclosures. Always verify policy triggers, sub‑limits, exclusions (e.g., social engineering), claim processes, and the insurer’s financial strength before relying on stated headline limits.

For amounts and context, see XBTO’s overview of custody insurance and regulation.

Criteria for Evaluating Crypto Custody Providers

Selecting the best digital‑asset custody provider for security risk management and compliance requires a multi‑factor framework. Focus on controls that prevent, detect, and respond to threats; verified regulatory standing and audit certifications; breadth of supported chains and tokens; and operational governance that matches internal policies. Use a structured scorecard to benchmark providers across security design, audit history, insurance scope, asset coverage, API maturity, onboarding SLAs, and reporting. The goal is clear: minimize operational, regulatory, and counterparty risk while enabling compliant growth.

Security Risk Management Practices

Assess how the provider prevents, detects, and responds to threats. Require MPC or multi‑sig for key operations, air‑gapped cold storage or HSMs, and external audits and red‑team exercises. Review withdrawal approvals, whitelists, velocity limits, and emergency kill‑switches. Favor zero‑incident records and continuous monitoring with clear on‑call escalation and post‑incident transparency. Request security architecture diagrams, pen‑test summaries, and control attestations; verify that control owners, logging, and alerting are documented and tested.

Regulatory Compliance and Audit Certifications

Prioritize custodians with SOC 2, SOC 1, and ISO 27001 certifications, supported by current reports and management letters. Many institutions require custodians to operate as chartered trust companies or banks, which tightens oversight and examination rigor. Verify the specific regulator (e.g., OCC, NYDFS), the legal entity holding licenses, and the geographic scope of permissions. Map regulatory requirements to your policies: client asset segregation, beneficial‑ownership checks, sanctions screening, and suspicious‑activity reporting.

Supported Digital Assets and Blockchain Networks

Map operational needs to the custody provider’s supported chains, token standards, staking, and Web3/NFT workflows. Cobo supports 3,000+ tokens across 80+ networks; BitGo supports 700+ tokens; Coinbase Custody supports 200+ assets. Coverage matters for liquidity, treasury, and product roadmaps. Evaluate APIs for address creation, policy management, and reporting. Confirm migration options and SLAs for onboarding new chains or token contracts, especially for emerging L2s and tokenized RWAs.

Operational Controls and Governance

Examine policy governance, approver roles, and key ceremonies: who can approve what, from where, and when. Review business continuity and disaster‑recovery plans, geo‑redundant backups, and immutable audit logs. Ensure role‑based access control with least‑privilege defaults, and require dual‑control for sensitive actions. Institutions should insist on configurable workflows that mirror internal policies, including segregation of duties between trading, treasury, and compliance teams.

Bottom line: The right custodian aligns proven cryptography, offline key protection, audited controls, clear regulatory status, and sufficient insurance with your asset universe and workflows. For multi‑chain, enterprise‑grade operations under one platform, Cobo offers a compelling combination of security risk management, compliance, and breadth. In the U.S., bank/trust custodians like Fidelity Digital Assets, Coinbase Custody, and Anchorage Digital provide strong regulated options. Use the scorecard to validate claims and reduce residual counterparty risk.

FAQs

What security measures are essential in digital asset custody?

The most important security measures include air‑gapped cold storage, multi‑party computation or multi‑signature protocols, regular third‑party audits, and robust operational controls to prevent unauthorized access. Institutions should also require strong governance, immutable audit logs, and tested disaster recovery plans to mitigate operational risk across teams and jurisdictions.

How do regulatory requirements impact custody provider selection?

Regulatory requirements determine whether client assets are held under a trust or bank charter, what examinations apply, and which audit certifications must be maintained. Providers with SOC 1/SOC 2 and ISO 27001 status plus clear regulator oversight reduce compliance risk. Alignment with your jurisdictions and reporting duties supports long‑term trust and program scalability.

What role does insurance play in crypto custody?

Insurance serves as a last‑resort backstop against covered risks like theft or internal fraud tied to a custodian’s infrastructure. Headline limits matter, but scope, sub‑limits, and exclusions drive real protection. Always verify covered causes, claim processes, and the insurer’s financial strength before relying on stated limits.

How does multi‑party computation improve custody security?

MPC improves security by distributing key control across independent parties or devices, so no single compromise exposes full signing power. This reduces single‑point failures and enables policy‑driven approvals—quorums by role, geography, or value—making governance both stronger and more adaptable than single‑key systems.

Can institutions use multiple custody providers to mitigate risks?

Yes. Many institutions diversify across multiple custodians and technologies to reduce operational and counterparty risk while optimizing asset coverage. Multi‑custodian strategies can separate trading from treasury, map different risk profiles to different providers, and ensure redundancy for key operations and regional compliance.

Check more Cobo's posts about how to evaluate and choose right digital assets custodians:

• Cobo evaluation guide: https://www.cobo.com/post/the-definitive-guide-to-evaluating-crypto-custody-firms-for-institutional-investors

• Choosing a digital asset custodian: https://www.cobo.com/post/choosing-digital-asset-custodian

• Cobo vs. Fireblocks (architecture fit): https://www.cobo.com/post/cobo-vs-fireblocks-choosing-the-right-digital-asset-custody-provider-for-your-business

• Digital asset custody guide: https://www.cobo.com/post/digital-asset-custody-guide