MPC as a Service excels at rapid deployment and operational simplicity because it abstracts away the complexity of key generation, signing orchestration, and node management. For example, providers like Fireblocks and Qredo offer SLAs guaranteeing 99.95%+ uptime and integrate with over 50 exchanges and blockchains out-of-the-box, enabling teams to launch secure custody in weeks, not quarters. This model shifts capital expenditure (CapEx) to operational expenditure (OpEx), with typical pricing models based on transaction volume or active key shares.
LABS
Comparisons
MPC as a Service vs Self-Hosted MPC Infrastructure
A technical and operational comparison for CTOs and protocol architects, evaluating managed services against building proprietary MPC clusters. We analyze control, total cost of ownership, security models, and required expertise.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Custody Infrastructure Decision
A foundational comparison of managed services versus self-managed infrastructure for Multi-Party Computation (MPC) wallet security.
Self-Hosted MPC Infrastructure takes a different approach by providing full control over the cryptographic stack, compliance boundaries, and data sovereignty. Using libraries like ZenGo's tss-lib or running nodes from Thresh Labs requires significant in-house cryptographic expertise but results in the trade-off of higher initial development cost for potentially lower long-term operational costs and no reliance on a third-party's API availability or business continuity.
The key trade-off: If your priority is speed-to-market, reduced DevOps burden, and predictable OpEx, choose MPC as a Service. If you prioritize maximum control, regulatory requirements for data locality, or have the engineering depth to manage cryptographic infrastructure, choose Self-Hosted MPC. The decision often hinges on whether your core competency is building security infrastructure or leveraging it to build your application.
tldr-summary
MPC as a Service vs Self-Hosted MPC
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A side-by-side comparison of the core operational and strategic trade-offs between managed services and self-hosted infrastructure for Multi-Party Computation (MPC).
01
MPCaaS: Speed to Market
Rapid deployment: Go live in days, not months, using pre-built APIs from providers like Fireblocks, Qredo, or Zengo. This matters for product teams needing to integrate secure wallet infrastructure without deep cryptography expertise.
Weeks
Dev Time Saved
02
MPCaaS: Operational Simplicity
Managed risk and compliance: The service provider handles key generation, rotation, backup, and regulatory attestations (SOC 2, ISO 27001). This matters for CTOs who need to offload security overhead and ensure audit readiness.
03
Self-Hosted: Ultimate Control
Full protocol and custody sovereignty: You own the entire stack, from the underlying libraries (e.g., GG18/GG20) to the geographic location of nodes. This matters for protocol architects building non-custodial systems where trust minimization is paramount.
04
Self-Hosted: Long-Term Cost & Flexibility
Predictable, fixed costs: Avoid per-transaction or per-signature fees from service providers. Enables deep customization for novel signing schemes or integration with your existing HSM infrastructure. This matters for VPs of Engineering with high transaction volumes and a dedicated infra team.
~$0
Marginal Tx Cost
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
MPC as a Service vs Self-Hosted MPC Infrastructure
Direct comparison of operational and technical metrics for enterprise key management.
| Metric | MPC as a Service (e.g., Fireblocks, Qredo) | Self-Hosted MPC (e.g., Sepior, Unbound) |
|---|---|---|
Time to Production Deployment | < 1 week | 8-16 weeks |
Infrastructure & DevOps Overhead | Managed by Provider | Requires Dedicated Team |
Upfront Capital Expenditure (CapEx) | $0 | $250K - $1M+ |
Ongoing Operational Cost (Annual) | $50K - $500K+ | $200K - $750K+ |
Cross-Cloud & Geographic Redundancy | ||
Direct Integrations (Exchanges, Wallets) | 40+ | Requires Custom Integration |
SLA for Uptime & Support | 99.95% - 99.99% | Defined Internally |
pros-cons-a
KEY TRADEOFFS
MPC as a Service vs Self-Hosted Infrastructure
A data-driven comparison for teams deciding between managed services and in-house deployment for Multi-Party Computation (MPC) wallets.
01
MPCaaS: Operational Simplicity
Eliminates infrastructure overhead: No need to manage node clusters, key generation ceremonies, or uptime SLAs for the underlying MPC network. Services like Fireblocks, Qredo, and Coinbase WaaS handle this. This matters for teams with limited DevOps bandwidth or those needing to launch secure custody in weeks, not quarters.
Weeks
Time to Launch
02
MPCaaS: Built-in Compliance & Audit
Pre-integrated regulatory tooling: Leading providers bundle transaction policy engines, real-time AML screening (e.g., Chainalysis), and audit trails that meet SOC 2 Type II standards. This matters for institutions in regulated markets (DeFi, payments) who cannot afford to build and certify this stack internally.
SOC 2 Type II
Common Certification
03
Self-Hosted: Absolute Cost Control
Predictable, linear scaling: After the initial setup cost (engineering time, hardware), operational costs are primarily cloud/AWS bills, scaling directly with usage. This matters for high-volume, low-margin applications (e.g., a centralized exchange's hot wallet) where per-transaction fees from an MPCaaS provider would be prohibitive.
$0.001
Avg. Tx Cost (at scale)
05
MPCaaS: Shared Risk & Liability
Contractual SLAs and insurance: Providers typically offer financial guarantees (e.g., $500M+ insurance pools) and uptime SLAs (>99.9%). The risk of a catastrophic failure is transferred. This matters for enterprises and custodians where the potential loss from a self-hosted bug far outweighs the service fee.
$500M+
Typical Insurance Cover
pros-cons-b
MPC AS A SERVICE VS. SELF-HOSTED
Self-Hosted MPC Infrastructure: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for teams managing high-value assets or sensitive operations.
01
MPC as a Service: Operational Simplicity
Zero infrastructure overhead: No need to manage servers, key shard storage, or network orchestration. Providers like Fireblocks, Qredo, and Zengo handle all complexity. This matters for teams that need to deploy secure custody in weeks, not months, and lack dedicated DevOps/SRE resources.
02
MPC as a Service: Rapid Feature Access
Instant protocol integrations: Access to pre-built integrations for 40+ blockchains (Ethereum, Solana, Cosmos), DeFi protocols (Uniswap, Aave), and institutional rails. This matters for rapid product iteration where supporting the latest L2 (e.g., Base, Blast) or new standard (e.g., ERC-4337) is a competitive requirement.
03
Self-Hosted: Sovereign Control & Compliance
Full legal and technical custody: Your team controls the entire key lifecycle and signing infrastructure, meeting strict regulatory requirements (e.g., MiCA, NYDFS). This matters for regulated entities (banks, large custodians) and protocols where data residency and auditability are non-negotiable.
04
Self-Hosted: Predictable & Lower Long-Term Cost
No per-transaction or AUM fees: After the initial setup cost using libraries like libp2p or frameworks from ZenGo, running costs are fixed infrastructure bills. For high-volume operations (>100K txs/month), this can mean 60-80% lower annual costs compared to SaaS pricing models.
05
MPC as a Service: Hidden Costs & Lock-in
Vendor dependency and escalating fees: Costs scale with AUM and transaction volume, creating unpredictable OPEX. Migrating away requires a full key rotation, causing operational downtime. This is a critical risk for scaling protocols or financial products with thin margins.
06
Self-Hosted: High Initial Burden & Expertise
Significant upfront investment: Requires deep expertise in cryptography, distributed systems, and DevOps to implement securely. A single configuration error can lead to catastrophic failure. This is prohibitive for early-stage startups or teams without a dedicated security engineering function.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
MPC as a Service for Speed
Verdict: The clear choice for rapid development and scaling. Strengths: Zero infrastructure overhead. Services like Fireblocks, Qredo, and Coinbase MPC provide instant API access, abstracting away node management, key ceremony orchestration, and library maintenance. This enables sub-second transaction signing and immediate scaling to handle user growth without operational bottlenecks. Ideal for consumer apps, high-frequency DeFi integrations, or any project where time-to-market is critical.
Self-Hosted MPC for Speed
Verdict: Not ideal. Speed is hampered by operational complexity. Weaknesses: Significant lead time for procurement, deployment, and hardening of hardware security modules (HSMs) and MPC nodes. Scaling requires manual cluster expansion. Latency is introduced by your own network infrastructure. Only consider if you have a dedicated, expert infrastructure team and cannot accept third-party API dependencies for regulatory reasons.
MPC AS A SERVICE VS SELF-HOSTED
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Security Models
Choosing between managed and self-hosted Multi-Party Computation (MPC) is a foundational architectural decision impacting security, cost, and operational overhead. This analysis breaks down the key technical trade-offs for engineering leaders.
Self-hosted MPC typically offers a higher security ceiling, but MPCaaS provides a stronger security floor. With self-hosted, you control the entire key generation, storage, and signing infrastructure, eliminating third-party trust. However, achieving this requires expert-level configuration of hardware security modules (HSMs), network isolation, and rigorous operational security. MPCaaS providers like Fireblocks, Qredo, or Anjuna abstract this complexity, offering battle-tested, audited environments and instant updates, which reduces the risk of catastrophic misconfiguration for most teams.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between MPC as a Service and self-hosted infrastructure is a fundamental trade-off between operational agility and sovereign control.
MPC as a Service excels at rapid deployment and operational simplicity because providers like Fireblocks, Qredo, and Coinbase Cloud manage the entire cryptographic stack, key generation, and hardware security modules (HSMs). For example, Fireblocks boasts a 99.99% uptime SLA and can onboard a new institutional wallet in minutes, eliminating months of internal development and compliance overhead. This model shifts capital expenditure to operational expenditure, with typical costs scaling from $1K-$10K/month based on transaction volume and user count.
Self-Hosted MPC Infrastructure takes a different approach by granting teams full custody and architectural control using libraries like libp2p or frameworks from ZenGo or Partisia. This results in a significant trade-off: you gain sovereignty and eliminate third-party trust, but you assume the entire burden of securing the network, maintaining nodes, and patching vulnerabilities. The initial setup requires a dedicated security team and can cost $250K+ in engineering time and hardware (e.g., Thales HSMs), with ongoing costs for audits and incident response.
The key trade-off: If your priority is speed-to-market, reduced operational burden, and predictable costs, choose MPC as a Service. This is ideal for fintechs, exchanges, or protocols launching a new product line. If you prioritize maximum security control, regulatory requirements for self-custody, or have extreme transaction volumes (>1M TPS internally), choose a self-hosted MPC solution. This path is standard for top-tier custodians, sovereign nations, or Web3 protocols where the signing infrastructure is a core competitive moat.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall