1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
AIMS vs DGH: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of AIMS (Auric International Market PTY LTD) and DGH (Draper Goren Holm) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Financial institutions and registrants headquartered in the United States and Canada
- AIMS 6D Score
- 7.0
- DGH 6D Score
- 2.0
- Regulated Licences
- 1 vs 0
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
AIMS outranks DGH by +5.0 pts in composite 6D scoring (7.0 vs 2.0)
On supervisory breadth, AIMS holds 1 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 2 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas DGH holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 2 total filings and 0 warning count(s). Allocators should inspect the individual licence numbers and contracting legal entities below before onboarding.
6-Dimension Quantitative Scorecard Comparison
Head-to-head breakdown across all 6 proprietary evaluation dimensions (0.0–10.0 scale).
| Evaluation Dimension | Methodology Weight | AIMS | DGH | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 7.0 | 2.0 | +5.0 | AIMS |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 7.0 | 2.0 | +5.0 | AIMS |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 4.0 | 1.0 | +3.0 | AIMS |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 7.0 | 2.0 | +5.0 | AIMS |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 6.0 | 2.0 | +4.0 | AIMS |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: AIMS vs DGH
Vector comparison exhibit generated from live supervisory snapshot metrics.
Regulatory Standing, Entity & Platform Comparison
Structural comparison of supervisory authorisations, domicile, execution terminals, and risk telemetry.
| Audit Attribute | AIMS | DGH |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Auric International Market PTY LTD | Draper Goren Holm |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 1 regulated / 2 total (0 Tier-1) | 0 regulated / 2 total (0 Tier-1) |
| Recorded Certificate Numbers | California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI): Not suppliedU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): Not supplied | |
| Registered Domicile / Address | Unit Level 9F(2), Main Office Tower, Financial Park Labuan, Jalan Merdeka, 87000 Federal Territory of Labuan, Malaysia. | 1112 Montana Ave, #384, Santa Monica, California 90402, United States. |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Currencies, Cryptocurrencies, Global Stocks, Global Indices, Metals and Commodities | blockchain technology services |
| Execution Software & Terminals | MT4, MT5 | Proprietary / Web Platform |
| Supported Client Languages | Chinese (Simplified), Chinese (Traditional), Malay, English | English |
| Warning / Exposure Count | 0 recorded warning(s) | 0 recorded warning(s) |
| Specialized Sub-Page Audits |
Related 1v1 Institutional Comparisons
Compare AIMS and DGH against other regulated peers in our financial institutions and registrants headquartered in the united states and canada slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: AIMS vs DGH
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: AIMS or DGH?
AIMS holds more active regulated filings (1 vs 0). Specifically, AIMS maintains 2 total recorded filing(s) (ASIC, Labuan FSA) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas DGH maintains 2 recorded filing(s) (California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)) with 0 warning flag(s). Always confirm the specific subsidiary onboarding your account on the official regulator register.
How do the 6D quantitative compliance scores compare between AIMS and DGH?
In Americas Firm Ledger's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), AIMS records an Overall Score of 7.0 (Risk & Licensing: 7.0, Brand: 7.0, Market Influence: 6.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 4.0), compared with DGH at 2.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 2.0, Brand: 2.0, Market Influence: 2.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0).
How do AIMS and DGH differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
AIMS lists Currencies, Cryptocurrencies, Global Stocks, Global Indices, Metals and Commodities with execution software [MT4, MT5], while DGH lists blockchain technology services with execution software [proprietary/web execution]. Counterparties should verify FIX/API connectivity, server routing topology, and negative balance protection per entity.
Which counterparty carries lower regulatory warning and complaint exposure: AIMS or DGH?
AIMS carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while DGH carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s).
Structured against supervisory register snapshots and public regulatory filings. Verify your contracting legal entity and current authorisation status directly on the issuing regulator’s official register before transacting.