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.
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.
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 Collaborative Multisig.
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..
Based on our six-category scoring methodology, Unchained scores higher at 85/100 compared to 83/100. 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.
Unchained scored 88/100 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 Collaborative Multisig. Always verify these details and do your own research.
No. Casa has eliminated single-point-of-failure risk through its Collaborative Multisig model, distributing keys or access across multiple entities.
Unchained charges $250/yr + trading. Casa charges $30 - $250/yr. Unchained scored 78/100 on fees versus 75/100 for Casa in our methodology.
Fit follows the custody model, not the brand. Both platforms here run the same model, so the honest answer is one answer.
You hold most keys, the provider holds one, and no single party can move funds alone.
Unchained offers dedicated inheritance or beneficiary features. Casa offers dedicated inheritance or beneficiary features. Match the mechanism, whether beneficiary designation, trust titling, or key inheritance, to your estate plan.
Unchained's custody insurance is not publicly disclosed. Casa'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.
Unchained involves the holder in key control. Casa involves the holder in key control. This is the core structural difference to weigh.