Casa vs Anchorage

Casa and Anchorage both operate in the dedicated custody space, but they take fundamentally different approaches to how your bitcoin is held. Casa scores 83/100 (A-) versus 69/100 (B-) for Anchorage. The 14-point spread is meaningful — it usually comes down to custody architecture and fee structure.

Where Each Platform Wins

Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 11 points toward Casa (86 vs. 75). Casa eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while Anchorage relies on a model where one compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. On fees, Casa wins by 10 points. Casa charges $30 - $250/yr compared to Custom at Anchorage. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators. Casa's strongest advantage is in transparency (84 vs. 65), where Casa's approach to proof-of-reserves and public documentation makes a measurable difference.

The Custody Question

Here's the key difference: Casa has no single point of failure (Self-Custody Multisig), while Anchorage does (Crypto-Native Bank). This matters because a single-point-of-failure model means one compromised entity — whether through a hack, insolvency, or government action — could result in total loss of funds. History has proven this risk is not theoretical. FTX, Celsius, and BlockFi all represented single points of failure for their users.

Bottom Line

Casa edges out Anchorage by 14 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 best self-custody ux. mobile key management. inheritance protocol. over occ-chartered crypto bank. staking, trading, settlement. soc 1 & 2.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Casa is built for self-custody, while Anchorage serves institutions. One thing to watch with Anchorage: does not use multisig. single institutional custodian..