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 fieldOKX InstitutionalEvidence reviewed
Profile
Directory categoryExchange Custody
Custody modelExchange custodial
Directory verificationunverified
Research statusPrimary-source evidence reviewed
Regulatory jurisdictionsNot yet structured
Regulators / authoritiesNot yet structured
Regimes / permissions
  • MiCA CASP — entity/jurisdiction specific
Documented services
  • Exchange custody
  • Crypto-asset administration
  • Off-exchange custody connectivity
  • Institutional trading
Security certificationsNot yet structured
Regulatory evidenceOKX states its EEA entity is MiCA-authorized and that the authorization includes custody and administration of crypto-assets; institutions may use OKX custody or selected off-exchange regulated partners.
Security evidenceOKX’s EEA materials describe custody policy, client position records and segregation of client crypto assets from its own assets.
Asset protection evidenceEEA terms state client crypto assets are held separately from OKX assets and custody records are maintained per client.
Procurement caveatOKX is a global group. Confirm the legal entity, jurisdiction and custody route before treating a specific account as MiCA custody.

Shortlist summary

OKX Institutional — Exchange Custody — 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.