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 for embedded wallets) and contract they prefer, simplifying the whole vertical use case—from cross-app ecosystems and AI agents to fintech and DeFi.
Key Features
Openfort is designed for teams that are 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.
Opensigner for embedded wallets: 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. Opensigner powers Openfort's embedded wallet product, enabling seamless onboarding via social login, email, or any OIDC provider. Learn more about how to avoid wallet vendor dependency.
TEE backend wallets for server-side key management: Openfort also provides backend wallets using Trusted Execution Environments (TEEs) for server-side private key storage. These are ideal for automating transactions, enforcing permissions, and running wallet automations without exposing keys to your application layer.
Built-in blockchain infrastructure: Unlike Fireblocks, which requires separate integrations for smart account features, Openfort includes native paymasters for gasless transactions, session keys, and a policy engine out of the box. For example, you can build a DeFi application with embedded wallets and smart accounts that sponsors gas for users—without needing third-party paymaster providers.
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 | Usage-based (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
Openfort uses usage-based pricing where an operation is defined as creating a wallet or sending a transaction—you only pay for what you actually use, with no per-seat or MAU-based fees that penalize growth. This makes costs predictable and transparent from day one, unlike Fireblocks which requires enterprise contracts with custom pricing. Openfort also provides native ERC-4337 and EIP-7702 support with policy engines for gas sponsorship, while Fireblocks offers embedded wallets but smart account features require additional integration work. On chain support, Fireblocks covers 150+ blockchains, while Openfort focuses on EVM chains and Solana with deep smart account and paymaster integration.
Why developers choose Openfort
Developers choose Openfort when they want enterprise-grade security through Opensigner and TEE backend wallets, but with open-source sovereignty, native smart account features including gasless transactions via built-in paymasters, and predictable usage-based pricing—all without the enterprise sales cycles and opaque contracts that Fireblocks typically requires.
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 that appeals to organizations with fiduciary responsibilities. As a qualified custodian, BitGo is suitable for funds and institutions that require regulatory compliance as a baseline, not an afterthought. BitGo also serves as custodian for major Bitcoin ETFs alongside Coinbase and Anchorage, which speaks to the maturity of their infrastructure. However, BitGo does not provide native smart account features, gas sponsorship, or embedded wallet capabilities—teams needing these features would need to pair BitGo with a solution like Openfort.
Why developers choose BitGo
Teams choose BitGo when their primary requirement is regulated, insured institutional custody with a proven track record. Now a publicly traded company on NYSE, BitGo offers additional transparency into its operations and financial health. It is the strongest option for organizations where compliance and insurance are non-negotiable, though developers building consumer-facing applications may find its feature set insufficient for modern wallet UX.
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's main advantage over Fireblocks is flexibility across wallet architectures in one platform. Organizations that need different security models for different use cases—hot wallets for frequent trading, cold storage for reserves, MPC for operational accounts—can manage all of them through Cobo's unified interface. Cobo also offers usage-based pricing that is more accessible than Fireblocks' enterprise contracts. That said, Cobo does not include native paymaster infrastructure for gasless transactions, so teams building consumer-facing applications would need to integrate additional infrastructure for gas abstraction.
Why developers choose Cobo
Teams choose Cobo when they need versatility across multiple wallet types and a strong presence in Asian markets. The unified platform approach simplifies operations for organizations managing diverse treasury and trading workflows, though it is more focused on institutional custody than on the developer-first embedded wallet experience that Openfort provides.
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's federal bank charter is its defining advantage, providing a level of regulatory clarity that no other crypto custodian can match in the United States. The company is planning a potential 2027 IPO backed by a $400M funding round, and as of December 2025, the OCC has granted conditional approval to Circle, Ripple, BitGo, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Paxos to operate as federally chartered national trust banks—increasing competitive pressure in this space. Anchorage does not offer developer-facing embedded wallet products, smart account infrastructure, or gasless transaction capabilities, so it is best suited for pure institutional custody rather than application development.
Why developers choose Anchorage Digital
U.S.-based institutions choose Anchorage when they need the highest level of regulatory compliance for digital asset custody. The federal bank charter and qualified custodian status make it the default choice for funds, asset managers, and financial institutions with strict fiduciary requirements. For teams building consumer-facing or developer-focused products, however, Anchorage's offering is complementary to—not a replacement for—application-layer wallet infrastructure like Openfort.
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 an IPO with Goldman Sachs, Citi, and Deutsche Bank as potential banks, which reflects the institutional credibility of their platform. Their ClearLoop settlement system integrates directly with exchanges, which is valuable for trading firms that need custody integrated with prime services. Like most institutional custody providers, Copper does not offer embedded wallet infrastructure, paymaster support for gasless transactions, or developer-focused SDKs for consumer applications.
Why developers choose Copper
Trading firms and institutions choose Copper when they need custody tightly integrated with prime brokerage and settlement services. The combination of MPC security with optical air-gapping provides strong protection for high-value assets, and ClearLoop enables off-exchange settlement that reduces counterparty risk. Copper is best suited for institutional trading operations rather than consumer application development.
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 squarely on regulated financial institutions with bank-grade compliance requirements. Their strong suit is offering both cloud and on-premise deployment options, which is critical for banks with strict data residency and security requirements. Dfns provides a developer-first API that makes integration more straightforward than Fireblocks' enterprise-oriented SDK, though it lacks native smart account features, gas sponsorship via paymasters, and embedded wallet onboarding that platforms like Openfort include out of the box.
Why developers choose Dfns
Banks and fintechs choose Dfns when they need institutional-grade MPC key management with flexible deployment options—particularly on-premise installations that satisfy regulatory mandates. Dfns has demonstrated real-world scale with clients like ABN AMRO and Fidelity, and its developer-first API approach reduces integration friction compared to Fireblocks. However, teams that also need consumer-facing wallet features like gasless transactions or social login would need to combine Dfns with additional infrastructure.
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 usage-based pricing, making it accessible without enterprise sales cycles. The core value proposition is speed and security at the infrastructure layer—Turnkey provides the TEE-based signing primitive, and you build the wallet experience on top. This means teams get 50-100x faster signing than traditional MPC solutions, but they also take on the responsibility of building their own embedded wallet UX, gas management, and paymaster integrations. Openfort, by contrast, includes all of these components natively alongside its signing infrastructure.
Why developers choose Turnkey
Developers choose Turnkey when they want the lowest-level key management infrastructure with excellent performance and are prepared to build the rest of the wallet stack themselves. It is the right choice for teams with strong engineering resources that want maximum control over the user-facing wallet experience. Teams that prefer a more complete solution with built-in paymasters for gasless transactions, embedded wallet onboarding, and smart account orchestration may find that Openfort requires less custom development.
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 through Opensigner, native smart account capabilities with built-in paymasters for gasless transactions, TEE backend wallets for server-side key management, or transparent usage-based pricing where you only pay per operation, Openfort provides the modern infrastructure you need without enterprise lock-in.
Explore Openfort's embedded wallet, wallet automations, or account abstraction infrastructure to learn more.