The Future of Custody is Not One-Size Fits All

The digital asset custody landscape is evolving rapidly, with institutions demanding top-tier security, flexibility, and operational efficiency. As more crypto exchanges, asset managers, and payment providers enter the space, choosing the right custody provider is critical for securing assets and ensuring seamless transactions.

Two major players in this space---Cobo and Fireblocks---offer digital asset custody solutions, but they take different approaches. Fireblocks focuses only on Multi-Party Computation (MPC) wallets, whereas Cobo provides a more advanced, next-generation solution that integrates MPC Wallets, Custodial Wallets, Smart Contract Wallets, and Exchange Wallets, along with unmatched blockchain and token support.

As institutions scale and diversify, they need custody solutions that evolve with them. Cobo’s advanced multi-model custody approach ensures secure, and future-proof operations, empowering institutions to stay ahead of the competition. If you're looking for a smarter custody platform that delivers flexibility, customizable risk controls, cost-effectiveness, and round-the-clock support, here's why Cobo is the superior choice.

Cobo vs. Fireblocks: Key Differentiators


1. Comprehensive Wallet Technologies

Institutions have different security and operational requirements, making wallet flexibility a critical factor in choosing a custody provider. Fireblocks offers MPC wallets exclusively, while Cobo provides a full suite of custody solutions that cater to a variety of institutional use cases.

In addition to MPC wallets, Cobo supports:

• Custodial Wallets – Fully managed custody with hot, warm, and cold storage

• Smart Contract Wallets – Designed for DeFi interactions and automated asset management

• Exchange Wallets – Optimized for high-frequency trading and institutional exchange operations

Why It Matters

Institutions need flexibility in wallet management—some require the control of MPC wallets, while others prefer the simplicity and compliance advantages of custodial wallets. Fireblocks enforces an MPC-only model, limiting institutions that require a hybrid approach. Cobo offers the best of both worlds, allowing businesses to tailor their custody setup to their specific needs, balancing security, governance, and operational efficiency.

2. Pricing & Cost Efficiency

Institutional custody involves not just base fees, but also operational costs, gas fees, and feature add-ons. Pricing flexibility is key to long-term scalability.

Cobo offers transparent, usage-based pricing with no annual lock-ins and lower maintenance fees, allowing institutions to scale operations without rigid cost structures. Additionally, institutions can offset custody costs through Cobo’s Earn App, generating yield on idle assets such as USDC.

Why It Matters

Rigid, high-cost pricing models make scalability difficult for institutions. Fireblocks requires annual contracts and premium add-ons, making cost predictability challenging. Cobo’s flexible pricing and yield generation capabilities provide a cost-efficient alternative, allowing institutions to manage custody expenses more effectively.

3. Institutional-Grade Customer Support

Custody solutions play a critical role in institutional operations, and support availability is a major deciding factor when selecting a provider.

Fireblocks operates on a ticket-based support system, which can introduce delays even for high-priority situations. In contrast, Cobo provides 24/7 direct human support, including real-time access via Telegram and dedicated support representatives who understand institutional workflows.

Why It Matters

Institutional transactions require real-time support, especially for high-value transfers or operational emergencies. Waiting on ticket responses can lead to costly delays. Cobo ensures institutions have instant access to problem solvers, significantly reducing response times compared to Fireblocks.

4. Auto-Token Sweeping for Operational Efficiency

Managing large-scale deposits across multiple addresses requires manual reconciliation and monitoring—a time-consuming process. Cobo eliminates this friction by handling everything for you or through our auto-token sweeping feature, which consolidates assets into designated wallets without requiring manual intervention.

Why It Matters

For exchanges, asset managers, and treasury operations, manually consolidating funds is not just inefficient—it introduces unnecessary risk, operational overhead, and potential delays in asset availability. Fireblocks requires manual configuration and tracking, whereas Cobo provides a more streamlined, automated experience.

5. Self-Service Token Listing

For exchanges and asset managers, rapidly onboarding new tokens is a competitive advantage.

Cobo provides instant self-service token listing, allowing institutions to add new tokens independently without requiring provider approval. Additionally, Cobo supports both EVM and non-EVM chains, meaning institutions operating on networks like Solana, TON, or Cosmos can list assets faster without lengthy integration delays.

Why It Matters

Delays in token listing can mean lost trading volume and missed market opportunities. Cobo’s self-service listing model provides institutions with more control over their asset expansion strategies compared to Fireblocks which requires a lengthy approval process for non-EVM chains, slowing down token integrations.

6. Gas Fee Automation & Flexible Payment Options

Gas fee management is a common pain point for institutions managing assets across multiple chains. Without automation, institutions must manually track and replenish native tokens to avoid failed transactions.

Cobo’s Fee Station automates gas fee management, allowing institutions to:

• Pay transaction fees using USDT instead of native tokens

• Prevent transaction failures due to insufficient balances

• Streamline gas fee reconciliation and tracking

Why It Matters

Manually holding and managing gas tokens introduces unnecessary complexity and risks. Fireblocks requires institutions to pre-fund native tokens and monitor balances, while Cobo removes this barrier, reducing the risk of failed transactions due to insufficient gas fees.

7. Compliance Tools & Risk Management

Institutions operating in regulated environments require built-in compliance tools that seamlessly integrate with custody operations.

Cobo includes KYT & AML tools at no extra cost, eliminating the need for third-party add-ons. Additionally, 100+ customizable security controls allow institutions to fine-tune risk parameters based on:

• Wallet type

• User role

• Transaction limits

• Asset type

• Geolocation/IP restrictions

Why It Matters

Regulatory compliance and security should not be treated as afterthoughts. Fireblocks requires third-party integrations for compliance, which increases cost and complexity. Cobo’s built-in security controls and compliance tools provide institutions with greater adaptability and cost efficiency.

8. Extensive Blockchain & Token Support

A custody provider’s chain and token coverage directly impacts an institution’s ability to expand trading and asset management operations.

Cobo supports 80+ blockchains and 3,000+ tokens, including non-EVM networks like Solana and TON. This breadth of coverage enables institutions to:

• Diversify asset offerings beyond standard EVM-compatible networks

• Accelerate token integrations without relying on slow approval processes

• Reduce the need to add more custody providers for non-EVM assets

Why It Matters

Multi-chain support determines an institution’s ability to expand operations. Fireblocks provides limited support for non-EVM chains, while Cobo offers broader coverage, enabling institutions to scale their operations across a wider asset range.

9. MPC Key Share Distribution & Security Model

While both providers offer MPC security, their approach to key management differs.

Cobo ensures that client key shares are never stored by Cobo, offering flexible M-of-N recovery configurations to accommodate different security needs.

Fireblocks, however, retains all key shares within its infrastructure, operating on a rigid 3-of-3 recovery model, which may limit institutions seeking more control over key management.

Why It Matters

For institutions with strict governance policies or regulatory requirements, key share autonomy is a critical security factor. Cobo empowers institutions with greater control over their own security configurations, while Fireblocks’ approach may not align with all security and compliance mandates.

10. Integrated Institutional Apps

Cobo extends its platform beyond custody, offering a comprehensive suite of institutional-grade applications that support liquidity management, compliance, payments, and trading operations. Unlike Fireblocks, where many of these functionalities require manual integration with third-party providers, Cobo provides a built-in app store experience, enabling institutions to seamlessly access and deploy solutions without external dependencies.

Key Apps:

Why It Matters

Custody alone does not address every institutional need. Cobo’s institutional app store extends custody beyond key management, providing built-in solutions for liquidity, compliance, and payments, among others. By eliminating the need for manual integrations and third-party add-ons, these apps help institutions reduce operational complexity and focus on growth and scalability in dynamic market conditions.