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 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? Onramp scores 90/100 (A) versus 80/100 (B+) for Swan Bitcoin. The 10-point spread is meaningful — it usually comes down to custody architecture and fee structure.
Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 14 points toward Onramp (97 vs. 83). Onramp 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, Onramp wins by 14 points. Onramp charges $250/mo 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: Onramp has no single point of failure (Multi-Institution Custody), 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.
Onramp edges out Swan Bitcoin by 10 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 only platform with multiple regulated custodians and jurisdictions. inheritance, dynasty trusts, insurance on segregated incidents. over ira offerings. swan vault for collaborative custody. strong educational community.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Onramp is built for institutions & hnw, 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, Onramp scores higher at 90/100 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.
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. 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.
Onramp charges $250/mo. Swan Bitcoin charges 0.99% - 1.49%. Onramp scored 84/100 on fees versus 70/100 for Swan Bitcoin in our methodology.
Onramp 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.
Onramp carries insurance of up to $100 million per incident, through Lloyd's of London. 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.
Onramp manages keys for you; you hold none. Swan Bitcoin manages keys for you; you hold none. This is the core structural difference to weigh.