Onramp vs Strike (Global)

Onramp (dedicated custody) and Strike (Global) (fintech) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? Onramp scores 90/100 (A) versus 71/100 (B-) for Strike (Global). The 19-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 34 points toward Onramp (94 vs. 60). Onramp eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while Strike (Global) relies on a model where one compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk.

The Custody Question

Here's the key difference: Onramp has no single point of failure (Multi-Institution Custody), while Strike (Global) does (Custodial). 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

Onramp is the clear choice here, outscoring Strike (Global) by 19 points across our six-category methodology. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Onramp is built for institutions & hnw, while Strike (Global) serves international. One thing to watch with Strike (Global): custodial. limited markets. not designed for large holdings.. The data speaks for itself — but always verify our methodology and do your own due diligence before moving bitcoin to any platform.