Pick the two you are actually choosing between. Each comparison puts them side by side on the same scored methodology, with the architecture difference stated plainly.
This is deliberately not a ranked list. If you want a ranking, the full score table is one click away and shows every platform with its methodology. A decision between two options is a different question from “who is best”, and it is usually the one people actually have.
Dedicated custody: qualified custodians, collaborative multisig, and multi-institution arrangements. The choice here is architectural — who can move your bitcoin, and how many independent things must fail first.
12 scored in this category. See all with scores.
Where you acquire bitcoin, and whether it stays there. Fee differences are usually smaller than the difference in what happens to your coins if the platform fails.
15 scored in this category. See all with scores.
The retirement wrapper does not change who can move the bitcoin. Compare the custody arrangement underneath alongside fees and account mechanics.
8 scored in this category. See all with scores.
Spot ETFs give price exposure without key management, and you inherit the fund's custodian without choosing it. Custody is far more concentrated across these than the ticker diversity suggests.
12 scored in this category. See all with scores.
Where custody risk and credit risk combine. Every failure in our incident registry involving yield turned on rehypothecation or on legal title, not on cryptography.
12 scored in this category. See all with scores.
Self-custody devices, scored on a separate six-dimension rubric weighted toward entropy and key generation. Counting devices is not the same as counting failure domains.
4 scored in this category. See all with scores.
A comparison page exists for any two scored platforms. Construct one directly at /compare/[platform-a]-vs-[platform-b]. The pairings above are the ones we actively maintain and submit for indexing. A platform that is not scored has not been assessed, which is not the same as having been assessed poorly.
Proof of Custody, "Compare Bitcoin Custody Platforms", https://proofofcustody.io/compareEach platform is scored on the same published six-category methodology — custody security 35%, ease of use 20%, fees 15%, features 10%, transparency 10%, support 10% — from public information such as regulatory filings, insurance documentation, and provider disclosures. Comparisons render those scores side by side along with custody architecture and fee structure. Scores are editorial assessments, not investment advice.
Proof of Custody is published by Onramp Bitcoin, which appears in these comparisons scored by the same methodology as every other platform. The methodology is published in full so the scoring can be checked rather than trusted, this hub is deliberately not a ranked list, and every factual error we have made is recorded in a public corrections log.
A ranked list answers a question nobody actually has. Real decisions are between two or three specific options that a reader has already narrowed to, and the useful information is the difference between them: who can move funds alone, what recovery looks like without the provider, and what the fees are on the position size in question.
Comparison pages exist for any two scored platforms, so you can construct one directly at /compare/[platform-a]-vs-[platform-b]. The pages linked from this hub are the pairings we actively maintain and submit for indexing. If a platform is not scored at all, we have not assessed it, which is different from having assessed it poorly.