Strike vs Anchorage

Strike (exchange and brokerage) and Anchorage (dedicated custody) serve different corners of the Bitcoin ecosystem, but the question that matters most is the same: who controls the keys? The scores are close — Strike at 74/100 (B) and Anchorage at 69/100 (B-). When the gap is this narrow, the details matter: custody model, single points of failure, and the fine print on fees.

Where Each Platform Wins

Custody and security — the most heavily weighted category in our methodology at 35% — tilts 10 points toward Anchorage (75 vs. 65). Both platforms carry single-point-of-failure risk, but Anchorage mitigates it more effectively through its Crypto-Native Bank approach. On fees, Strike wins by 20 points. Strike charges ~0.3% spread compared to Custom at Anchorage. Over a multi-year holding period, fee differences compound — a point worth considering for long-term accumulators. Strike's strongest advantage is in ease of use (85 vs. 60), where Strike's user experience and onboarding flow makes a measurable difference.

The Custody Question

Neither Strike nor Anchorage has fully eliminated single-point-of-failure risk. Strike uses Single Custodian and Anchorage uses Crypto-Native Bank. Both models leave your bitcoin exposed to custodial concentration risk — if that one entity fails, your bitcoin could be locked, seized, or lost. For long-term holders, this is the most important factor to weigh.

Bottom Line

Strike edges out Anchorage by 5 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 near-zero fees on some purchases. lightning-native. simple dca. over occ-chartered crypto bank. staking, trading, settlement. soc 1 & 2.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Strike is built for beginners, while Anchorage serves institutions. One thing to watch with Anchorage: does not use multisig. single institutional custodian..