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 Force (yield and lending) 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 Swan Force at 58/100 (C). That 32-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 62 points toward Onramp (97 vs. 35). Onramp eliminates single points of failure in its custody architecture, while Swan Force 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 Employer plan fees at Swan Force. 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 Force 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 Swan Force by 32 points across our six-category methodology. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Onramp is built for institutions & hnw, while Swan Force serves employers. One thing to watch with Swan Force: custodial. employer-dependent. limited to participating companies.. 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 58/100. 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 Force 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. Swan Force charges Employer plan fees. Onramp scored 84/100 on fees versus 70/100 for Swan Force in our methodology.
Onramp offers dedicated inheritance or beneficiary features. Swan Force 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 Force'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 Force manages keys for you; you hold none. This is the core structural difference to weigh.