Anchorage vs Sygnum

Anchorage and Sygnum both operate in the dedicated custody space, but they take fundamentally different approaches to how your bitcoin is held. The scores are close — Anchorage at 69/100 (B-) and Sygnum at 67/100 (B-). When the gap is this narrow, the details matter: custody model, single points of failure, and the fine print on fees.

Where Each Platform Wins

Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 10 points toward Sygnum (85 vs. 75). Both platforms carry single-point-of-failure risk, but Sygnum mitigates it more effectively through its Regulated Bank approach. On fees, Anchorage wins by 10 points. Anchorage charges Custom compared to Custom at Sygnum. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators.

The Custody Question

Neither Anchorage nor Sygnum has fully eliminated single-point-of-failure risk. Anchorage uses Crypto-Native Bank and Sygnum uses Regulated Bank. Both models leave your bitcoin exposed to custodial concentration risk — if that one entity fails, your bitcoin could be locked, seized, or lost. For long-term holders, this is the most important factor to weigh.

Bottom Line

Anchorage edges out Sygnum by 2 points. It's a close call, and the right choice depends on your specific situation — how much bitcoin you're holding, how often you need access, and whether you prioritize occ-chartered crypto bank. staking, trading, settlement. soc 1 & 2. over swiss banking license. tokenization services. regulated digital asset bank.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Anchorage is built for institutions, while Sygnum serves swiss. One thing to watch with Sygnum: single custodian. swiss jurisdiction only. premium pricing..