1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
DGH vs EVO Wallet: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of DGH (Draper Goren Holm) and EVO Wallet (EVO Wallet) 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
- DGH 6D Score
- 2.0
- EVO Wallet 6D Score
- 4.0
- Regulated Licences
- 0 vs 0
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
EVO Wallet outranks DGH by +2.0 pts in composite 6D scoring (4.0 vs 2.0)
On supervisory breadth, DGH holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 2 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas EVO Wallet holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 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 | DGH | EVO Wallet | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 2.0 | 4.0 | +2.0 | EVO Wallet |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 2.0 | 4.0 | +2.0 | EVO Wallet |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 1.0 | 2.0 | +1.0 | EVO Wallet |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 2.0 | 4.0 | +2.0 | EVO Wallet |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 2.0 | 4.0 | +2.0 | EVO Wallet |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: DGH vs EVO Wallet
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 | DGH | EVO Wallet |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Draper Goren Holm | EVO Wallet |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 0 regulated / 2 total (0 Tier-1) | 0 regulated / 0 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 | None on file |
| Registered Domicile / Address | 1112 Montana Ave, #384, Santa Monica, California 90402, United States. | US |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | blockchain technology services | Transfers, cryptocurrency wallets, secure storage |
| Execution Software & Terminals | Proprietary / Web Platform | Proprietary / Web Platform |
| Supported Client Languages | English | English |
| Warning / Exposure Count | 0 recorded warning(s) | 0 recorded warning(s) |
| Specialized Sub-Page Audits |
Related 1v1 Institutional Comparisons
Compare DGH and EVO Wallet against other regulated peers in our financial institutions and registrants headquartered in the united states and canada slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: DGH vs EVO Wallet
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: DGH or EVO Wallet?
Both DGH and EVO Wallet hold 0 regulated licence record(s) in our dataset. Specifically, DGH maintains 2 total recorded filing(s) (California Department of Financial Protection and Innovation (DFPI), U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas EVO Wallet maintains 0 recorded filing(s) (none on file) 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 DGH and EVO Wallet?
In Americas Firm Ledger's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), DGH records an Overall Score of 2.0 (Risk & Licensing: 2.0, Brand: 2.0, Market Influence: 2.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0), compared with EVO Wallet at 4.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 4.0, Brand: 4.0, Market Influence: 4.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 2.0).
How do DGH and EVO Wallet differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
DGH lists blockchain technology services with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while EVO Wallet lists Transfers, cryptocurrency wallets, secure storage 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: DGH or EVO Wallet?
DGH carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while EVO Wallet 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.