# Vaultody vs Cobo

Both run MPC — only one of us is non-custodial everywhere. Cobo sells four wallet types on one platform, full custody included. Vaultody sells one thing: non-custodial MPC infrastructure where your share is mandatory on every signature. Both publish prices — the real difference is the custody model, and what it costs at your size.

## Side by side

Competitor claims are sourced from their own site and public documentation, September 2026.

| | Vaultody | Cobo |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Signing model | Non-custodial by threshold math — 3-of-3 MPC, your share mandatory on every signature | MPC wallets in 2-of-2 and 3-of-3 setups with a Cobo-held share, alongside a separate full-custody line (HSMs and Intel SGX) |
| Custody models offered | One — non-custodial. There is no custodial mode to misconfigure into | Custodial, MPC, smart-contract and exchange wallets on one platform |
| Published pricing | From $249/mo, full rate card on the page | Starter $299/mo, Standard $999/mo, then Enterprise custom |
| Overage rate | 0.20% per transfer at entry, falling to 0.10% by plan | 0.20% on Starter, 0.16% on Standard |
| TRON fee optimization | Built in — delegated energy, −5% to −15% by plan | Not found in public docs |
| Recovery and exit path | Public, MIT-licensed, offline recovery tool — auditable before you deposit | Backup and recovery run by you or a third-party disaster-recovery provider |
| MPC protocol named | DKLS23 (ECDSA) and FROST (EdDSA), stated publicly | TSS — the public docs do not name the algorithm |
| Chain coverage | 17 blockchains, 34 networks, 10,000+ assets | 3,000+ tokens across 80+ chains |
| Compliance posture | SOC 2 & ISO 27001 in progress — stated plainly | SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001; licensed in Hong Kong and the United States |

## Where we come out ahead, and where they do

On the questions that decide custody risk we think Vaultody is the better answer: one custody model instead of four, so nothing in your setup quietly depends on a provider-held share or a custodial fallback; a client share that is mandatory on every signature; a recovery tool that is public, offline and still works with the company gone; and TRON fee tooling Cobo does not publish. Cobo is genuinely stronger elsewhere — it covers far more chains, it has operated custody at scale since 2017, and if you want custodial and self-custody wallets from a single vendor, that breadth is the product. The list further down says exactly when that should decide it.

## How to run the evaluation, in order

The sequence that stops a custody decision turning into a feature-grid argument.

1. **Start with the custody model** — decide first whether you want a custodian or self-custody. A platform that sells both will happily provision either; make the topology you wanted the one you actually got, in writing.
2. **Count the parties on the key** — ask each vendor how many signing parties there are, who holds each share, and which are mandatory. The answer is arithmetic, not marketing, and it decides who can move funds without whom.
3. **Read the exit path** — ask to see the recovery tool and the backup format. If recovery depends on the vendor's cooperation, uptime or goodwill, price that risk.
4. **Price your real flow** — model your actual monthly volume, chain mix and fee mechanics: TRON energy, sponsored gas, batch payouts. Headline platform fees rarely decide the total.
5. **Test on testnet, not in a deck** — integrate the happy path and two failure paths under a standard account before you negotiate. An afternoon on testnet beats a month of reference calls.

## When Cobo is the better fit

- **You want custody and self-custody from one vendor** — Cobo sells a licensed custodial line next to its MPC wallets. We deliberately have no custodial mode, so if the mandate is a custodian of record, they can answer it and we cannot.
- **You need the widest chain list** — 80+ chains against our 17. If your roadmap runs on long-tail chains, breadth wins and no signing argument changes that.
- **You are exchange-adjacent** — exchange wallets are a first-class product line there, built for trading platforms. That is their territory, not ours.
- **Where we differ** — our client party is mandatory on every signature and our recovery tool is public and offline. Those are the two claims to test on testnet, not to take from a page.

## FAQ

**Can Vaultody move our funds without us?**
No — structurally. Signing is 3-of-3 and your share is mandatory. Cobo's MPC wallets also split key shares — their docs state no single party can move funds alone — but the same platform sells full custody, where the provider does hold the keys. We have no such mode: non-custodial is the only product.

**Can we migrate from Cobo?**
Yes — new MPC keys are generated under the 3-of-3 model and assets move on-chain. Ask for the migration outline in a demo.

## Related

- [Vaultody vs Fireblocks](/compare/fireblocks)
- [Vaultody vs BitGo](/compare/bitgo)
- [Vaultody vs Copper](/compare/copper)
- [Vaultody vs Utila](/compare/utila)
- [Platform](/platform)
- [Pricing](/pricing)