Scores last updated
Fit follows the custody model, not the brand.
You hold most keys, the provider holds one, and no single party can move funds alone.
One company holds the keys; you hold a claim on the company.
N/A
Casa (dedicated custody) and Swan Bitcoin (exchange and brokerage) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? The scores are close — Casa at 82/100 (A-) and Swan Bitcoin at 80/100 (B+). When the gap is this narrow, the details matter: custody model, single points of failure, and the fine print on fees.
Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 7 points toward Casa (90 vs. 83). Casa eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while Swan Bitcoin 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 0.99% - 1.49% at Swan Bitcoin. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators.
Here's the key difference: Casa has no single point of failure (Collaborative Multisig), while Swan Bitcoin does (Single Custodian + Vault). 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.
Casa edges out Swan Bitcoin 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 best self-custody ux. mobile key management. inheritance protocol. over ira offerings. swan vault for collaborative custody. strong educational community.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Casa is built for self-custody, while Swan Bitcoin serves retail & ira. One thing to watch with Swan Bitcoin: primary custody through partner custodian. vault option available for larger holders..
Based on our six-category scoring methodology, Casa scores higher at 82/100 compared to 80/100. The biggest differentiator is custody security, which accounts for 35% of the overall score. However, the right choice depends on your individual needs — review the category breakdown above.
Casa scored 90/100 on custody and security in our methodology. It has no single point of failure, distributing custody across multiple entities. Its custody model is classified as Collaborative Multisig. Always verify these details and do your own research.
Yes. Swan Bitcoin uses a Single Custodian + Vault model, which means a single compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. This is a structural concern for long-term holders.
Casa charges $30 - $250/yr. Swan Bitcoin charges 0.99% - 1.49%. Casa scored 75/100 on fees versus 70/100 for Swan Bitcoin in our methodology.
Casa offers dedicated inheritance or beneficiary features. Swan Bitcoin does not advertise a dedicated inheritance feature. Match the mechanism, whether beneficiary designation, trust titling, or key inheritance, to your estate plan.
Casa's custody insurance is not publicly disclosed. Swan Bitcoin's custody insurance is not publicly disclosed. Custody insurance covers specific named events up to shared limits, not price loss or every failure mode. Verify current terms before relying on coverage.
Casa involves the holder in key control. Swan Bitcoin manages keys for you; you hold none. This is the core structural difference to weigh.