Scores last updated
Fit follows the custody model, not the brand.
Separate institutions each hold a key under their own ceremony; no one of them can move funds.
One company holds the keys; you hold a claim on the company.
N/A
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? In our scoring model, Onramp holds a commanding lead at 90/100 (A) compared to Strike (Global) at 70/100 (B-). That 20-point gap reflects real, measurable differences in how each platform handles custody, fees, and transparency.
Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 32 points toward Onramp (97 vs. 65). 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. On fees, Onramp wins by 14 points. Onramp charges $250/mo compared to ~0.3% spread at Strike (Global). Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators. Onramp's strongest advantage is in transparency (90 vs. 55), where Onramp's approach to proof-of-reserves and public documentation makes a measurable difference.
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.
Onramp is the clear choice here, outscoring Strike (Global) by 20 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.
Based on our six-category scoring methodology, Onramp scores higher at 90/100 compared to 70/100. 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.
Onramp scored 97/100 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 Multi-Institution Custody. Always verify these details and do your own research.
Yes. Strike (Global) uses a Custodial model, which means a single compromised entity could put your bitcoin at risk. This is a structural concern for long-term holders.
Onramp charges $250/mo. Strike (Global) charges ~0.3% spread. Onramp scored 84/100 on fees versus 70/100 for Strike (Global) in our methodology.
Onramp offers dedicated inheritance or beneficiary features. Strike (Global) does not advertise a dedicated inheritance feature. Match the mechanism, whether beneficiary designation, trust titling, or key inheritance, to your estate plan.
Onramp carries insurance of up to $100 million per incident, through Lloyd's of London. Strike (Global)'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.
Onramp manages keys for you; you hold none. Strike (Global) manages keys for you; you hold none. This is the core structural difference to weigh.