Unchained vs Casa

Unchained and Casa both operate in the dedicated custody space, but they take fundamentally different approaches to how your bitcoin is held. The scores are close — Unchained at 85/100 (A-) and Casa at 83/100 (A-). 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

On custody and security, these two are within 2 points of each other (88 vs. 86). When custody scores are this close, look at the specifics: key management model, insurance coverage, and whether either platform has a single point of failure.

The Custody Question

Both Unchained and Casa have addressed the single-point-of-failure problem — neither relies on a single custodian or a single set of keys. That puts both platforms ahead of the majority of the industry. The difference comes down to implementation: Unchained uses Collaborative Multisig, while Casa uses Self-Custody Multisig.

Bottom Line

Unchained edges out Casa by 2 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 2-of-3 multisig where client holds 2 keys. strong inheritance and ira products. lending available. over best self-custody ux. mobile key management. inheritance protocol.. Keep in mind these platforms target different audiences — Unchained is built for self-sovereign, while Casa serves self-custody. One thing to watch with Casa: you hold all keys. recovery requires planning. physical exposure risk..