Casa vs iTrust Capital

Casa (dedicated custody) and iTrust Capital (Bitcoin IRA) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? In our scoring model, Casa holds a commanding lead at 83/100 (A-) compared to iTrust Capital at 62/100 (C+). That 21-point gap reflects real, measurable differences in how each platform handles custody, fees, and transparency.

Where Each Platform Wins

Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 41 points toward Casa (86 vs. 45). Casa eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while iTrust Capital relies on a model where one compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. On fees, Casa wins by 5 points. Casa charges $30 - $250/yr compared to 1% per trade at iTrust Capital. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators.

The Custody Question

Here's the key difference: Casa has no single point of failure (Self-Custody Multisig), while iTrust Capital does (Custodial IRA). 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 is the clear choice here, outscoring iTrust Capital by 21 points across our six-category methodology. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Casa is built for self-custody, while iTrust Capital serves crypto ira. One thing to watch with iTrust Capital: single custodian. broad crypto focus, not bitcoin-specialized.. The data speaks for itself — but always verify our methodology and do your own due diligence before moving bitcoin to any platform.