Fystack vs Cobo: Which Pricing Model Works for You?
Ted Nguyen
Author
BD & Growth @Fystack
Cobo is a Singapore-based wallet-as-a-service provider specializing in institutional-grade custody and MPC solutions for exchanges, DeFi funds, and trading firms. The company publicly published their pricing model and with these numbers now available, Web3 teams can compare Cobo directly against self-hosted alternatives like Fystack on an equal basis.
This post covers five concrete differences between the two platforms: pricing, built-in product suite, wallet types, support, and deployment. Each section includes real numbers so you can make the decision based on your workload.
Cobo MPC Wallet Pricing 2026: Starter, Standard, and Enterprise Plan Breakdown
Cobo has three plans. Starter at $299/month and Standard at $999/month both have published prices with volume and address limits — exceed them and overage fees apply. Enterprise is custom-priced and is the only tier that includes Custodial Wallets, automated token sweeping, and 24/7 support.
Cobo plan limits at a glance (2026):
All three plans include MPC Wallets, Smart Contract Wallets, and Exchange Wallets, along with governance policies, approval workflows, and role-based permissions.
Fystack vs Cobo Cost Comparison: 10,000 Wallets at $500K Monthly Volume
Fystack's Growth plan costs $299 per month and includes 10,000 wallets, 2,000 crypto payment transactions, and $500,000 in monthly outbound volume. No volume percentage fees. No per-address charges.
Here is what the same workload costs on each platform at 10,000 wallets and $500,000 monthly volume:
Cobo Starter ($299 base):
- Volume overage: $500,000 total, minus $300,000 included = $200,000 excess at 0.25% = $500
- Address overage: 10,000 wallets, minus 6,000 included = 4,000 extra at $1.50 each = $6,000
- Total: $299 + $500 + $6,000 = $6,799 per month
Fystack Growth ($299 base):
- Volume: $500,000 is within the plan limit
- Wallets: 10,000 wallets is within the plan limit
- Total: $299 per month, flat
That is a $6,500 monthly difference and roughly $78,000 in annual savings at a workload that both platforms technically support at their $299 entry price. The reason is that Cobo's per-address pricing compounds quickly when you are generating wallets at scale, which is common for payments products, exchange integrations, or any service that assigns a unique wallet per user.
For teams that have scaled past the Growth tier, Fystack also offers a self-hosted plan with unlimited wallets, addresses, and volume at a fixed monthly fee.
Fystack also offers Builder Grants of up to $15,000 in free credits for qualifying startups, which can cover the first several months entirely.
See also: Fystack vs Fireblocks: Self-Hosted vs SaaS for a similar breakdown on a different competitor.
Cobo Built-in Apps (Earn, Staking, OTC) vs Fystack: What Do They Actually Do?
One area where Cobo is ahead is their built-in product suite, available across all pricing tiers.
Earn connects your wallets to DeFi protocols that pay yield on idle assets. Staking lets you lock up tokens to earn rewards on proof-of-stake networks, with slashing protection included. OTC handles large crypto trades directly between parties, without going through a public exchange.
Cobo also includes Token Swap, KYT screening for compliance, and automated reporting.
Fystack hasn’t bundled any of these products yet. Instead, Fystack provides the wallet infrastructure layer: scheduled sweeps, gas-optimized batching, multi-chain treasury management, and Telegram or Slack alerts. You connect your own yield protocols, your own OTC desk, and your own compliance tooling through Fystack's API.
The practical difference comes down to this: Cobo is faster to get started if you want staking yields or OTC access today without building integrations. Fystack gives you more flexibility and lower long-term cost if your team already has protocol relationships, or if you want to swap out individual components without being tied to a single vendor's suite.
Fystack vs Cobo Wallet Types: MPC, Hyper, Smart Contract, and Custodial Explained
Before comparing, a quick note on terminology.
An MPC wallet (Multi-Party Computation wallet) splits your private key into multiple shares held by different parties or systems, so no single point controls the full key.
A custodial wallet means a third party holds the private key on your behalf.
Smart contract wallets use on-chain code to define spending rules, multi-sig requirements, and other logic.
Hyper wallets are Fystack's term for their smart-contract-style wallets optimized for high transaction throughput.
Cobo supports four wallet types:
- MPC Wallets: included in all plans
- Smart Contract Wallets: included in all plans
- Exchange Wallets: included in all plans (for managing assets across exchange accounts)
- Custodial Wallets: Enterprise only
Automated token sweeping, which moves funds from many wallets into a single treasury wallet on a schedule, is also Enterprise-only on Cobo.
Fystack supports:
- MPC Wallets: all plans
- Hyper Wallets: all plans
- Self-hosted key storage: Growth and above, with keys held in your own AWS KMS, Google Cloud KMS, or on-premises HSM
- Automated sweeping: all paid plans
Side-by-side wallet availability:
The exchange wallet feature is one area where Cobo has more coverage. If your team actively manages assets across multiple centralized exchanges and wants to track those balances alongside your on-chain wallets in one dashboard, that is a Cobo-specific capability.
The self-custody distinction matters for teams in regulated environments. When Fystack is self-hosted, your private key material never leaves your cloud region or data center. Cobo's infrastructure always holds the keys, regardless of plan tier.
For more on why self-custody matters for compliance, see Vietnam Digital Asset Law: Compliant Crypto Custody and Data Sovereignty.
Fystack vs Cobo Customer Support: What Each Plan Actually Gives You
Cobo's support model is structured around plan tier. Starter and Standard customers submit support tickets and receive responses through standard business hours. The 24/7 support, real-time escalation, and dedicated Customer Success Manager are reserved for Enterprise customers, who are on a custom contract.
Fystack takes a different approach. Every user, including those on the free plan, can join the Fystack Telegram community, where the team engages directly with web3 founders, builders, and users. Paid plan customers get priority support through direct Telegram access to the Fystack engineering team. There is no tiered queue that routes you to a general support inbox first.
Self-Hosted vs SaaS Crypto Wallet Infrastructure: Which Is Right for Your Team?
Cobo is a fully managed SaaS platform. All infrastructure runs on Cobo's servers. You access it through their web portal or API. This is the right choice for teams that want to move fast without managing any infrastructure.
Fystack offers two modes. The SaaS version is similar to Cobo: managed, API-first, quick to start. The self-hosted version deploys with a single Docker or Kubernetes command inside your own cloud environment. Keys are generated in your own KMS. Audit logs write to your own SIEM. Fystack's MPC library is open-source on GitHub, which means you can inspect the cryptographic implementation before you deploy it.
The regulatory case for self-hosting is getting stronger in 2026. Data residency requirements in the EU under MiCA, new VASP registration frameworks in Southeast Asia, and emerging licensing requirements in the Middle East increasingly require custodians to show that private key material stays within a specific jurisdiction.
A SaaS platform cannot satisfy that requirement regardless of how good their security is, because the infrastructure is not in your control.
Fystack vs Cobo Security and Compliance in 2026
Cobo holds ISO 27001 certification and SOC 2 Type II attestation. These are widely recognized security standards that institutional clients commonly require from custody providers.
Fystack's team is currently working toward ISO 27001 certification. That process is in progress, which means Fystack does not yet carry the same third-party audit credentials as Cobo. For teams at enterprises or financial institutions with strict vendor certification requirements, that is a real consideration.
Fystack vs Cobo 2026: Full Feature Comparison
Which MPC Wallet Platform Is Right for Your Team in 2026?
Cobo is a solid platform with a clear value proposition: one dashboard for wallets, yield, staking, and OTC, backed by enterprise-grade certifications. For a treasury team that wants to activate institutional staking or DeFi yields quickly without writing integration code, Cobo's portal apps are a real advantage. The pricing works well at lower volumes and address counts, but becomes expensive fast once you scale past the included limits.
Fystack is the better fit for teams building payments infrastructure, exchange integrations, or any product that generates wallets at scale. Flat pricing means your costs do not compound as you grow. Self-hosted deployment means your keys and data stay inside your own environment. And direct team access means you are not waiting for a ticket queue when something needs immediate attention.
The right choice depends on your workload. Run the numbers against your own address count and monthly volume before committing to either plan.
Frequently Asked Questions
At what point does Cobo become more expensive than Fystack Growth?
The crossover happens faster than most teams expect. Address overages on Cobo Starter ($1.50 each above 6,000) are the biggest driver. At 10,000 wallets and $500K monthly volume, Cobo Starter costs $6,799 versus Fystack Growth at $299. Even within Cobo Standard's higher limits, crossing 13,000 addresses pushes the monthly bill to over $1,299 for the address fees alone, before any volume overages.
Does Fystack have anything like Cobo's Earn or Staking features?
No. Fystack's Growth plan includes wallet infrastructure, automation, and sweep tools, but no native yield or staking products. If you want DeFi yields or staking rewards, you would connect your own protocol or yield provider through Fystack's API. For teams starting from scratch with no existing integrations, Cobo's built-in suite gets you there faster.
How does Fystack support work for free-plan users?
Free-plan users have access to the Fystack Telegram community, which includes the Fystack team alongside other web3 founders and builders. It is not a dedicated support queue, but questions get answered there directly by the people who built the product. Paid plan users get priority direct support through a separate Telegram channel.
Which platform suits a payments product versus a treasury management team?
Payments products typically generate many wallet addresses (one per user or transaction) and process high outbound volume. Fystack's flat per-wallet model and Hyper wallet design are built for that pattern. Treasury and yield management teams that want to put idle assets to work through staking or DeFi earn without building integrations will find Cobo's portal apps more immediately useful, assuming the volume and address counts stay within plan limits.
This post is part of the Fystack comparison series, where we put Fystack side by side with leading MPC wallet infrastructure providers. The goal is to give you a clear, numbers-based view of each platform so you can make an informed decision for your team.
More comparisons in this series:
