Shortlist comparison

Compare institutional custody providers

Compare up to four custody-category providers side by side. Evidence-reviewed fields are separated from unverified directory research.

Choose providersEvidence Index

1 provider shortlisted. Unknown values stay unknown and do not imply a negative finding.

Request introductions
Comparison fieldBitpanda CustodyEvidence reviewed
Profile
Directory categoryDigital Asset Custodians
Custody modelCustodial / non-custodial options
Directory verificationunverified
Research statusPrimary-source evidence reviewed
Regulatory jurisdictionsNot yet structured
Regulators / authoritiesNot yet structured
Regimes / permissions
  • MiCAR / FCA / VARA — entity-specific
Documented services
  • Institutional custody
  • HSM key custody
  • Policy-based controls
  • Non-custodial deployment
Security certificationsNot yet structured
Regulatory evidenceBitpanda Enterprise markets regulated institutional custody across the UK, EU and MENA, with custodial and non-custodial deployment options.
Security evidenceBitpanda documents certified HSM-backed key custody, policy approvals, immutable audit logs and high-availability architecture.
Asset protection evidenceCustodial deployments place key safeguarding with the relevant Bitpanda entity; non-custodial deployments shift responsibility to the partner.
Procurement caveatThe precise legal entity and regulatory permission differ by region; confirm which entity holds keys and client assets.

Shortlist summary

Bitpanda Custody — Digital Asset Custodians — evidence reviewed
Important: Compare output is a research aid. Confirm current licences, assurance reports, insurance, asset segregation and contractual terms directly with each provider before onboarding.