Fireblocks is the leading digital asset infrastructure platform for financial institutions, securing more than $5 trillion in digital asset transfers annually and supporting over 2,400 organizations. However, its enterprise-focused pricing and proprietary infrastructure may not suit every team. Many developers and organizations seek alternatives that offer better pricing transparency, open-source options, or specific features like native smart accounts.
What are the Best Fireblocks Alternatives?
The best Fireblocks alternatives in 2026 are Openfort, BitGo, and Cobo. Openfort is the top choice for developers who need open-source infrastructure (OpenSigner), native smart account features like session keys and gas sponsorship, and a modular architecture that prevents vendor lock-in. BitGo (recently IPO'd on NYSE) is ideal for institutions requiring regulated, insured custody with multi-signature security. Cobo offers a versatile multi-wallet solution integrating MPC, custodial, and smart contract wallets. For U.S. institutions requiring federal bank charter, Anchorage Digital provides a unique regulatory position.
1. Openfort
Openfort (that's us) is an open-source wallet infrastructure solution that provides powerful wallet capabilities to abstract crypto complexity for both users and developers. Its platform allows developers to plug and play any signer (including OpenSigner) and contract they prefer, simplifying the whole vertical use case—from cross-app ecosystems and AI agents to fintech and DeFi.
Key Features
- If you're currently using Fireblocks and hitting limits around pricing opacity, need native smart account features (ERC-4337), want open-source self-hostable infrastructure, or need a solution that works for both consumer and enterprise use cases.
- Open source, Self-hosting option, Vendor neutrality: Openfort's core signing infrastructure (OpenSigner) is open-source and self-hostable, giving you complete sovereignty over your users' keys and data. Unlike Fireblocks' proprietary MPC, you can audit the code and self-host if needed. Learn more about how to avoid wallet vendor dependency.
- Concrete example: You want to build a DeFi application with embedded wallets and smart accounts that sponsors gas for users. With Fireblocks, you'd need to integrate separate smart account providers. With Openfort, these are native features.
Comparison Table: Openfort vs. Fireblocks
| Feature | Openfort | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|
| Target Market | Startups to Enterprise | Large Enterprise |
| Open Source | ✅ (OpenSigner) | ❌ (Proprietary MPC) |
| Key Management | SSS (Self-hostable) | MPC (Proprietary) |
| Smart Wallets | ✅ Native (4337, 7702) | ⚠️ Separate offering |
| Blockchain Support | EVM + Solana | 150+ blockchains |
| Pricing Model | MAU + Usage (Transparent) | Enterprise (Custom) |
| Vendor Lock-in | ❌ None (Exportable keys) | ⚠️ High (Proprietary) |
| Gas Sponsorship | ✅ Native Policy Engine | ⚠️ Separate integration |
| Session Keys | ✅ Granular Permissions | ❌ Not native |
| Compliance | In progress | SOC 2, ISO 27001 |
| Server Wallet | ✅ Backend Wallet | ✅ WaaS |
| Permission Model | On-chain (session keys) | Off-chain (enterprise policies) |
Scaling Considerations
- Startups & Mid-Market: Openfort offers a free tier up to 1,000 MAUs and 500 transactions, with transparent usage-based pricing. Fireblocks requires enterprise contracts.
- Smart Account Native: Openfort provides native ERC-4337 and EIP-7702 support with policy engines for gas sponsorship. Fireblocks offers embedded wallets but smart accounts require additional integration.
- Chain Support: Fireblocks supports 150+ blockchains. Openfort focuses on EVM chains and Solana with deep smart account integration.
Why developers choose Openfort
Developers choose Openfort when they want the enterprise-grade security of MPC-style key management but with open-source sovereignty, native smart account features, and predictable pricing without enterprise sales cycles.
2. BitGo
BitGo is a pioneer in crypto custody, offering multi-signature wallets and regulated trust services for institutions. BitGo went public on NYSE in January 2026, achieving a ~$2B market valuation.
Comparison Table: BitGo vs. Fireblocks
| Feature | BitGo | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|
| Security | Multi-sig + MPC | MPC (Proprietary) |
| Custody Type | Qualified Custodian | Self-custody + Trust Co. |
| Insurance | ✅ Comprehensive | ✅ Available |
| Compliance | SOC 2, ISO 27001 | SOC 2, ISO 27001 |
| Exchange Integrations | Strong | ✅ 30+ exchanges |
| ETF Custody | ✅ (ARK 21Shares) | ✅ |
Scaling Considerations
BitGo offers institutional-grade custody with comprehensive insurance coverage.
- Regulation: BitGo is a qualified custodian, making it suitable for funds and institutions with fiduciary requirements.
- ETF Ready: BitGo serves as custodian for major Bitcoin ETFs alongside Coinbase and Anchorage.
Why developers choose BitGo
For regulated, insured institutional custody with a proven track record and now public company transparency.
3. Cobo
Cobo provides a more advanced solution that integrates MPC Wallets, Custodial Wallets, Smart Contract Wallets, and Exchange Wallets, while Fireblocks focuses primarily on MPC wallets.
Comparison Table: Cobo vs. Fireblocks
| Feature | Cobo | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|
| Wallet Types | MPC + Custodial + Smart Contract | MPC Primary |
| Blockchain Support | 80+ chains, 3,000+ tokens | 150+ blockchains |
| Target Market | Institutions + Developers | Large Enterprise |
| Pricing | Usage-based | Enterprise |
| Asia Focus | ✅ Strong | Global |
Scaling Considerations
Cobo offers flexibility with multiple wallet architectures in one platform.
- Multi-Wallet: Useful for organizations that need different security models for different use cases (hot vs. cold, individual vs. organizational).
Why developers choose Cobo
For versatility across wallet types and strong presence in Asian markets.
4. Anchorage Digital
Anchorage Digital is America's first federally chartered crypto bank, providing unique regulatory status for U.S. institutions.
Comparison Table: Anchorage vs. Fireblocks
| Feature | Anchorage Digital | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|
| Regulatory Status | Federal Bank Charter (OCC) | State Trust Company |
| Custody Type | Qualified Custodian | Self-custody + Trust Co. |
| Security | HSM + Biometric | MPC (Proprietary) |
| Target | U.S. Institutions | Global Enterprise |
| Insurance | Comprehensive | Available |
Scaling Considerations
Anchorage is planning a potential 2027 IPO with a $400M funding round.
- Regulatory Edge: The federal bank charter provides unique regulatory clarity for U.S.-based institutions.
- Competition: As of December 2025, OCC granted conditional approval to Circle, Ripple, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Paxos to operate as federally chartered national trust banks.
Why developers choose Anchorage Digital
For U.S. institutions that need federally regulated custody with the highest level of regulatory compliance.
5. Copper
Copper provides institutional-grade crypto infrastructure including MPC custody, settlement, and prime brokerage services.
Comparison Table: Copper vs. Fireblocks
| Feature | Copper | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|
| Security | MPC + Optical Air-gapping | MPC (Proprietary) |
| Services | Custody + Prime Brokerage | Custody + Settlement |
| Settlement | ClearLoop | Network |
| Target | Institutions | Enterprise |
| IPO Plans | In early talks (2026) | Private |
Scaling Considerations
Copper is in early talks for IPO with Goldman Sachs, Citi, and Deutsche Bank as potential banks.
- Prime Brokerage: Strong offering for trading firms that need custody integrated with prime services.
Why developers choose Copper
For institutional custody with integrated prime brokerage and settlement services.
6. Dfns
Dfns is a leading wallets-as-a-service platform used by startups, enterprises, and financial institutions. Dfns has helped ABN AMRO, Fidelity, Zodia Custody, FIFA, and others create over a million wallets.
Comparison Table: Dfns vs. Fireblocks
| Feature | Dfns | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|
| Technology | Advanced MPC | MPC (Proprietary) |
| Target | Banks + Fintechs | Large Enterprise |
| Deployment | Cloud + On-prem | Cloud |
| API Focus | ✅ Developer-first | Enterprise SDK |
| Compliance | SOC 2, ISO | SOC 2, ISO |
Scaling Considerations
Dfns focuses on regulated financial institutions.
- Bank-Grade: Strong compliance and on-premise deployment options for banks with strict requirements.
Why developers choose Dfns
For institutional-grade MPC with flexible deployment options including on-premise.
7. Turnkey
Turnkey (founded by the Coinbase Custody team) provides secure, programmable key management infrastructure using TEEs with sub-100ms signing latency.
Comparison Table: Turnkey vs. Fireblocks
| Feature | Turnkey | Fireblocks |
|---|---|---|
| Technology | TEE (Enclaves) | MPC |
| Product Level | Infrastructure API | Full Platform |
| Performance | 50-100ms signing | Standard |
| Pricing | Usage-based | Enterprise |
| Target | Developers | Enterprise |
Scaling Considerations
Turnkey offers developer-focused infrastructure with transparent pricing.
- Build Your Own: Turnkey provides the security layer; you build the wallet stack on top.
- Performance: 50-100x faster than traditional MPC solutions.
Why developers choose Turnkey
For low-level key infrastructure with excellent performance when you want to build your own wallet stack.
Building In-House
Building your own custody solution is the ultimate alternative to Fireblocks.
Pros
- Total Control: Build the exact security model and features you need.
- No Vendor Dependency: Complete ownership of infrastructure.
Cons
- Complexity: HSM integration, key ceremony, disaster recovery, and compliance are extremely complex.
- Cost: Building and maintaining enterprise-grade custody requires significant investment.
- Liability: You own all security and compliance risk.
For a deeper dive into the trade-offs, check out our guide on building vs buying wallet infrastructure.
FAQ
1. Is Fireblocks only for large enterprises? Fireblocks offers an "Essentials" plan for smaller organizations, but pricing and features are primarily designed for enterprise scale.
2. Can I use Openfort with Fireblocks? Yes! You can use Fireblocks for key management and layer Openfort's smart account infrastructure on top for gas sponsorship, session keys, and policy engines.
3. What's the difference between MPC and TEE? MPC (Multi-Party Computation) distributes key shares across multiple parties. TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) runs code in secure hardware enclaves. Both provide strong security with different trade-offs.
4. Does Fireblocks support smart accounts? Fireblocks offers embedded wallets for consumer applications, but native ERC-4337 smart account features like session keys and batching require additional integration.
Conclusion
Fireblocks is an excellent choice for large enterprises that need institutional-grade custody with broad blockchain support and exchange integrations.
However, if you need open-source sovereignty, native smart account capabilities, or predictable pricing, Openfort provides the modern infrastructure you need without enterprise lock-in.
Check out Openfort's documentation to learn more.