Crypto.com or Kraken? Fees, Fiat, MiCA and Custody Explained

Crypto.com and Kraken both provide centralized crypto trading, but they are built around different user journeys.

Kraken is more directly centered on exchange, brokerage and fiat-market access. Kraken Pro provides order-book trading, while Kraken's standard Buy, Sell and Convert interface uses a different fee model.

Crypto.com combines a retail app, dedicated Exchange, Visa card, payments, staking and the wider Cronos ecosystem. That broader product range creates an important complication: the Crypto.com App, Crypto.com Exchange, card, cash account and other products can be provided through different services or legal entities depending on the jurisdiction.

For users deciding between the two, the useful comparison is therefore not just:

Which has the lower trading fee?

It is:

Which product am I using → which legal entity serves me → what fee applies → how do I fund and withdraw → what custody and reserve evidence exists → what current exchange risk does the public evidence support?

Cexvia currently rates:

• Kraken: 77/100 — Moderate Risk
• Crypto.com: 65/100 — Elevated Risk

The difference is driven mainly by Cexvia's current evidence for regulatory standing, corporate transparency, asset and solvency transparency, security history, and operations and user protection.

For the dedicated evidence-level comparison, see:

Crypto.com vs Kraken: Risk & Licence Comparison

This Research article focuses on the practical decision: fees, fiat access, product structure, MiCA, reserves, custody and use case.

Crypto.com and Kraken at a glance

Fees and regional products change. Always check the current account and applicable legal terms before trading.

1. Start by comparing the correct products

A common Crypto.com versus Kraken comparison makes an apples-to-oranges mistake.

It compares:

Crypto.com Exchange
vs
standard Kraken app

or:

Crypto.com retail App
vs
Kraken Pro

Those are different transaction models.

A more useful comparison is:

Advanced trading

Crypto.com Exchange
vs
Kraken Pro

Simple retail buying

Crypto.com App
vs
Kraken Buy / Sell / Convert

The interface matters because the fee structure, spread and execution method can differ.

2. Advanced spot fees: the old headline numbers are no longer current

Fee articles age quickly.

The important comparison is the current published schedule, not an old CoinMarketCap snapshot or a fee quoted in an article from a previous year.

Crypto.com Exchange

Crypto.com's current Exchange fee schedule lists its first standard spot tier, for less than $10,000 in 30-day spot volume and without qualifying CRO balance benefits, at:

• Maker: 0.250%
• Taker: 0.500%

Crypto.com offers CRO-related fee benefits and lower tiers for qualifying users.

Official reference:

Crypto.com Exchange — Spot Trading Fees

Kraken Pro

Kraken Pro uses a volume-based maker-taker schedule.

Kraken's current published material describes Pro spot fees ranging by tier, with lower-volume users paying more than higher-volume users.

Kraken's 2026 exchange comparison materials currently describe Kraken Pro spot pricing starting around:

• Maker: 0.25%
• Taker: 0.40%

and declining at higher volume tiers.

Kraken also changed how fee tiers are calculated in July 2026 so qualifying activity can be aggregated across more of the Kraken platform.

Official references:

• Kraken — Fee Schedule
• Kraken — Cross-Platform Fee Tier Changes

Simple example

At the quoted low-volume advanced rates:

$10,000 maker trade

Crypto.com Exchange at 0.25%
≈ $25

Kraken Pro at 0.25%
≈ $25

For a taker order:

$10,000 taker trade

Crypto.com Exchange at 0.50%
≈ $50

Kraken Pro at 0.40%
≈ $40

This simplified calculation excludes:

• Spread
• Slippage
• Funding cost
• Payment fee
• Withdrawal fee
• Network fee
• CRO-related benefits
• Higher-volume fee tiers

The difference can change materially for active traders.

3. Simple app purchases require a different comparison

The dedicated order book is not the only way users buy crypto.

Crypto.com App

Crypto.com's retail app can provide a quoted purchase or sale price rather than exposing the same maker-taker experience as its dedicated Exchange.

Crypto.com's own website notes that other fees and spread may apply depending on the transaction.

That means the Exchange's maker-taker fee should not automatically be used to describe the cost of every purchase made through the Crypto.com App.

Kraken standard interface

Kraken's current fee page states that standard instant and recurring trades are charged a 1% trading fee, with spread and payment costs potentially applying.

Kraken+ can waive certain transaction fees within its qualifying monthly limits, but that benefit does not apply to Kraken Pro Spot, Futures, API or OTC trading.

Kraken also distinguishes custom orders and other product routes from simple instant purchases.

The correct retail test

If a beginner wants to buy €1,000 of BTC, compare the final quote:

€1,000 funded
        ↓
final BTC received

Do not compare only:

headline fee percentage

because one interface may embed more cost in:

• Spread
• Payment processing
• Conversion
• Quote construction

For frequent traders, the order-book products are usually the more relevant comparison.

4. Fiat access is one of Kraken's strongest practical use cases

Kraken has historically built a strong proposition around fiat-funded trading and order-book markets.

For a user whose workflow is:

bank
→ exchange
→ EUR / USD order book
→ crypto
→ self-custody

the fiat route can matter more than card rewards or ecosystem features.

Compare:

• Supported fiat currency
• Bank transfer method
• SEPA / SEPA Instant
• ACH or domestic rail where available
• Deposit fee
• Withdrawal fee
• Settlement time
• Bank beneficiary
• Direct fiat trading pair
• FX conversion requirement

EUR users should inspect the actual EUR pair

A platform can have high global volume but weaker direct euro liquidity.

For BTC/EUR or ETH/EUR, check:

• Bid-ask spread
• Depth
• Recent trades
• Slippage
• Withdrawal route

Direct EUR liquidity can reduce the need for an intermediate stablecoin trade.

5. Crypto.com's advantage is the wider retail ecosystem

Crypto.com is not positioned only as an order-book exchange.

Its wider ecosystem can include:

• Crypto.com App
• Crypto.com Exchange
• Visa card
• Cash account
• Staking
• Earn-related products where available
• Crypto.com Pay
• Crypto.com Onchain
• Cronos ecosystem
• Institutional products
• Other region-specific financial products

That can be useful for someone who wants multiple crypto-related functions under one brand.

But it also creates an additional due-diligence requirement:

Which product is provided by which entity?

Crypto.com's own EEA licence page explicitly states that products and services can be provided by different group companies.

For example, in the EEA:

• Foris DAX MT Limited is the MiCA Crypto-Asset Service Provider for listed crypto services.
• Foris MT Limited provides the Cash Account.
• The Crypto.com Visa Card is also issued and promoted through Foris MT Limited under the relevant issuing structure.
• Other products on the website or App can be provided by other group companies and may fall outside those two entities' regulated services.

That is an unusually clear example of why users should not reduce a global exchange to one licence.

Official reference:

Crypto.com — EEA Licences and Registrations

6. Europe: both have MiCA routes, but entity mapping still matters

For European users, MiCA authorisation is now a core verification step.

The maximum EU transitional period ended on 1 July 2026, so old national VASP registrations should not automatically be treated as a substitute for current MiCA authorisation.

Crypto.com in the EEA

Crypto.com's current EEA disclosures identify:

Legal entity:
Foris DAX MT Limited

Jurisdiction:
Malta / EEA

Regulator:
Malta Financial Services Authority

Status:
MiCA Crypto-Asset Service Provider

Its published authorised services include:

• Exchange of crypto-assets for funds
• Exchange of crypto-assets for other crypto-assets
• Reception and transmission of orders
• Execution of orders
• Transfer services
• Custody and administration

Crypto.com also separately identifies the entities involved in cash-account and card services.

Kraken in the EEA

Kraken currently publishes a broader Irish regulatory structure.

Its July 2026 regulatory overview states that Irish subsidiaries hold:

• MiCA Crypto-Asset Service Provider authorisations
• An electronic-money institution licence
• Related European permissions

Kraken's current regulatory page identifies Payward Global Solutions Limited as a MiCA CASP with the Central Bank of Ireland for specified services.

Cexvia's current Passport also maps Payward Europe Solutions Limited to an Irish / EEA MiCA CASP record and separately records a Cyprus MiFID entity for regulated investment and derivatives services.

This illustrates the same principle:

Kraken brand
≠
one universal Kraken licence

The exact entity should be taken from the account agreement applicable to the customer and product.

For Cexvia's entity-level records:

• Crypto.com Risk Profile
• Kraken Risk Profile

7. MiCA does not make the two platforms equally low risk

Both platforms having a MiCA-authorised route does not mean their overall risk evidence is the same.

Cexvia currently scores:

Higher Cexvia scores indicate stronger evidence-backed risk controls.

The largest current gaps appear in:

• Regulatory and legal standing
• Corporate transparency
• Asset and solvency transparency
• Operations and user protection

Cexvia does not use trading fees or number of listed coins directly to determine the risk rating.

For the scoring basis:

Crypto.com vs Kraken: Risk & Licence Comparison

8. Reserve transparency: both publish evidence, but the scope differs

Both platforms publish reserve-related material.

The relevant question is not:

“Does it have Proof of Reserves?”

It is:

What does the current reserve evidence cover, when was it produced, and what does it not prove?

Crypto.com

Crypto.com currently states that customer assets are backed on a 1:1 basis and provides a Proof of Reserves verification route.

Its security page says users can verify reserves and their funds through its reserve-verification process.

However, Cexvia's current evidence model applies a stricter recency and completeness test.

Cexvia currently scores Crypto.com 46/100 for Asset & solvency transparency, because the primary independently verifiable reserve snapshot in its rating dataset is the December 2022 Mazars snapshot and continuous recent liability coverage remains limited.

This is an important difference between:

platform currently publishes reserve claims / verification

and:

Cexvia has sufficient current evidence to infer a stronger solvency-transparency score

Cexvia does not treat the absence of broader evidence as proof of insolvency.

It lowers confidence in the conclusion.

Kraken

Kraken publishes recurring Proof of Reserves reviews and allows users to verify covered balances.

Kraken describes these reviews as evidence that in-scope client balances were backed by assets in custody at the relevant review point.

Cexvia currently scores Kraken 62/100 for Asset & solvency transparency.

That is higher than Crypto.com's current Cexvia score, but it is still Kraken's lowest-rated dimension.

Cexvia does not interpret a Proof of Reserves review as proof of:

• Every liability
• Every group company
• All encumbrances
• Future liquidity
• Future solvency

Official reference:

Kraken — Proof of Reserves

9. Security history: current controls do not erase historical incidents

Security comparisons should keep two questions separate:

1. What incidents have occurred?
2. What controls exist now?

Crypto.com

Cexvia retains Crypto.com's January 2022 unauthorized-withdrawal incident in its historical security record.

Crypto.com reported:

• 483 affected users
• 443.93 BTC in unauthorized withdrawals
• 4,836.26 ETH
• Approximately US$66,200 in other crypto

Crypto.com said affected customers were fully reimbursed.

It also introduced additional controls, including a 24-hour delay after a new withdrawal address is added.

Cexvia currently gives Crypto.com 58/100 for Security & incident history.

The incident remains part of the history even though remediation occurred.

Kraken

Kraken publishes security controls including:

• Multi-factor authentication
• Account-security monitoring
• Security-key support
• Proof of Reserves
• Cold-storage controls
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification
• SOC 2 Type 1 examination

Kraken states that it has not suffered a major security incident resulting in loss of user funds from the core exchange since it began operating.

Cexvia currently scores Kraken 66/100 for Security & incident history.

That score does not imply that Kraken cannot experience:

• Phishing
• Account takeover
• Service interruption
• Future security incidents

Historical resilience is evidence, not a guarantee.

10. Account security still depends on the user

Exchange security controls are only part of the attack surface.

Users should protect:

• Exchange password
• Email password
• Phone number
• Authenticator
• Passkey
• Withdrawal addresses
• API keys
• Devices

Where supported, prefer:

• Passkey
• Hardware security key
• App-based authentication
• Withdrawal allowlist
• Anti-phishing code
• New-device alerts

Avoid relying on SMS alone when stronger options are available.

Crypto.com account lock

Crypto.com provides a One-Button Lock process that can restrict account access and withdrawals when a user believes an account or device is compromised.

Kraken account security

Kraken publishes dedicated account-lock and phishing-report procedures and allows users to contact its support team when suspicious activity is detected.

These tools are useful.

They do not remove the need to secure the email account controlling password recovery.

11. Custody: Crypto.com Onchain changes the responsibility model

Crypto.com has an additional distinction that is easy to miss.

Crypto.com App / Exchange

These are centralized services.

The platform or its relevant custodian controls operational access to assets held within the service.

Crypto.com Onchain

Crypto.com Onchain is a self-custody product.

The user controls wallet credentials.

Moving assets from the centralized platform to a self-custody wallet changes the risk model:

Centralized custody
→ counterparty / platform / withdrawal risk

versus:

Self-custody
→ seed phrase / signing / operational risk

A user should not interpret self-custody as automatically safer.

Losing a seed phrase or signing a malicious approval can be irreversible.

Kraken users can likewise withdraw to independent self-custody wallets, but Crypto.com's branded Onchain product makes this distinction especially visible within its ecosystem.

12. Cards and ecosystem rewards can be useful—but should not decide exchange risk

Crypto.com's Visa card and CRO-linked ecosystem are meaningful product differences.

For some users, those features may be more valuable than a small difference in trading fees.

But card benefits can change according to:

• Country
• Tier
• CRO holding or lockup
• Merchant category
• Program terms

The same applies to staking and rewards.

A displayed APY is not equivalent to bank interest.

Potential risks include:

• Token-price loss
• Validator risk
• Slashing
• Lockup
• Platform risk
• Regulatory restrictions

A user should separate:

product benefits

from:

exchange safety evidence

Cexvia's rating does not increase simply because a platform offers more rewards or ecosystem features.

13. Kraken is the simpler proposition for a fiat-focused trader

For someone whose primary objective is:

EUR / USD
→ spot order book
→ BTC / ETH
→ withdrawal

Kraken may provide the more straightforward product proposition.

Reasons include:

• Kraken Pro
• Direct fiat-focused trading workflow
• Long operating history
• Stronger current Cexvia regulatory score
• Higher Cexvia corporate-transparency score
• Recurring Proof of Reserves framework

This does not mean Kraken is automatically cheaper for every transaction.

The trader should still compare:

• Actual pair
• Current fee tier
• Spread
• Slippage
• Bank rail
• Withdrawal cost

14. Crypto.com is the broader ecosystem proposition

Crypto.com may fit a user who values:

• Integrated retail app
• Dedicated advanced Exchange
• Card
• Payments
• CRO ecosystem
• Cronos
• Self-custody through Onchain
• Broader consumer-product integration

The trade-off is additional complexity.

The user should identify:

Which product?
Which entity?
Which terms?
Which fee?
Which custody arrangement?

A global Crypto.com marketing page can describe products that are not all provided by the same regulated company.

Crypto.com's own EEA disclosures explicitly make that distinction.

15. Pair-level liquidity matters more than exchange-wide volume

The original article relied on 24-hour CoinMarketCap volume snapshots.

Those numbers can change dramatically and are not the most durable way to decide where to place one specific order.

Instead, compare the pair you intend to use.

For example:

BTC/EUR
ETH/EUR
BTC/USD
CRO/USD
CRO/USDT

Record:

• Best bid
• Best ask
• Spread
• Depth within 0.5%
• Depth within 1%
• Expected slippage
• Recent trade size

A platform with lower published fees can still produce worse execution on a thin pair.

This matters particularly for:

• Larger orders
• Smaller assets
• CRO-specific markets
• Regional fiat pairs

16. Compare the complete funding-to-withdrawal route

A realistic comparison should model one complete workflow.

Example:

Deposit €5,000
        ↓
Buy BTC
        ↓
Hold / trade
        ↓
Withdraw BTC
        ↓
Sell remaining BTC
        ↓
Withdraw EUR

Calculate:

bank deposit cost
+
trading fee
+
spread
+
slippage
+
crypto withdrawal cost
+
EUR withdrawal cost

The platform with the lowest maker fee is not necessarily the cheapest end-to-end route.

17. Test withdrawals before using either platform for larger balances

Before keeping a material amount on a centralized exchange:

1. Complete KYC.
2. Deposit a limited amount.
3. Place the intended trade.
4. Make a small crypto withdrawal.
5. Confirm the receiving network.
6. Test fiat withdrawal if fiat exit matters.

Check:

• Network
• Minimum withdrawal
• Withdrawal fee
• Memo / tag
• Address allowlist
• Security delay
• Bank beneficiary rules

A successful withdrawal does not prove future solvency.

It confirms that the specific account and route were functioning at that time.

For withdrawal troubleshooting:

Crypto Exchange Withdrawal Problems: How to Diagnose Delays, Holds and Missing Transfers

18. Check current operational status before depositing

Licence and Proof of Reserves information can remain valid while a temporary operational problem occurs.

Before depositing, check:

• Official status page
• Withdrawal status
• Fiat rail status
• Network maintenance
• Recent security notices
• Regulatory action

Cexvia Risk Radar monitors validated exchange-risk events such as:

• Withdrawal suspensions
• Outages
• Security incidents
• Licence changes
• Regulatory actions

Check Cexvia Risk Radar

Cexvia's July 2026 Crypto.com review noted that the withdrawal component was operational at the review point, while two unrelated status incidents remained unresolved and a recent EUR-channel delay had been resolved.

Kraken's current Cexvia operations score is higher, but status should still be checked at the time of use.

Which should you choose?

There is no universal winner.

Kraken may fit users who prioritize:

• Direct fiat trading
• Kraken Pro
• A relatively straightforward exchange-first workflow
• EUR or USD order-book access
• Longer operating history
• Stronger current Cexvia regulatory and corporate-transparency scores
• Recurring Proof of Reserves reviews

Cexvia currently rates Kraken:

77/100 — Moderate Risk

Crypto.com may fit users who prioritize:

• Integrated crypto app
• Crypto.com Exchange
• Visa card
• CRO ecosystem
• Cronos
• Payments
• Branded self-custody through Crypto.com Onchain
• Broader consumer-product integration

Cexvia currently rates Crypto.com:

65/100 — Elevated Risk

The broader product ecosystem can be convenient, but users should verify which group entity provides each service.

Choose neither before confirming:

• Your jurisdiction is supported
• The correct legal entity is identifiable
• The product is available in your region
• The pair has adequate liquidity
• The total cost is acceptable
• The required withdrawal network works
• The exit route has been tested

Practical Crypto.com vs Kraken checklist

Use this order.

Step 1 — Product

Are you comparing:

Crypto.com Exchange vs Kraken Pro

or:

Crypto.com App vs Kraken retail interface

Do not mix the two.

Step 2 — Jurisdiction

Confirm the platform legally serves your country and the specific product is permitted.

Step 3 — Legal entity

Read the account agreement.

Record the company that actually serves the account.

Step 4 — Regulatory status

Verify the relevant entity and product scope.

For EU users, check the applicable MiCA record.

Step 5 — Fiat route

Compare:

• Bank deposit
• SEPA / ACH / other rail
• Fiat withdrawal
• Processing time
• Beneficiary
• Fees

Step 6 — Pair liquidity

Inspect the actual EUR, USD or crypto pair.

Step 7 — Total cost

Calculate:

funding
+
trade
+
spread
+
slippage
+
withdrawal

Step 8 — Custody and reserves

Review:

• Proof of Reserves
• Recency
• Covered assets
• Liability limitations
• Custody terms

Step 9 — Security history

Review historical incidents and current controls separately.

Step 10 — Exit test

Test both crypto and fiat withdrawals before materially increasing exposure.

Frequently asked questions

Is Crypto.com cheaper than Kraken?

Not automatically.

For advanced spot trading, Crypto.com Exchange currently lists a low-volume standard tier of 0.25% maker and 0.50% taker before eligible CRO-related benefits.

Kraken Pro's current low-volume pricing is around 0.25% maker and 0.40% taker, declining at higher volume tiers.

Simple app purchases use different pricing models, so compare the actual quote rather than only the Exchange or Pro fee schedule.

Why did older articles show lower Crypto.com fees?

Crypto exchange fee schedules change.

Older Crypto.com Exchange comparisons often cite a 0.075% entry rate that is no longer the current standard low-volume rate shown on Crypto.com's official fee page.

Always verify the current fee schedule.

Which is better for European users?

Both have regulated European structures.

Crypto.com's EEA crypto services are provided through Foris DAX MT Limited under MiCA for the published service scope.

Kraken uses Irish MiCA-authorised entities and other European entities for different services.

The better option depends on the exact product, fiat route, pair liquidity and legal entity applicable to the user.

Which is safer according to Cexvia?

Cexvia currently rates Kraken 77/100 — Moderate Risk and Crypto.com 65/100 — Elevated Risk.

The difference reflects Cexvia's evidence-based scoring across five risk dimensions.

It is not a guarantee of future safety.

Does Crypto.com publish Proof of Reserves?

Crypto.com publishes reserve and user-verification information and states that customer assets are backed on a 1:1 basis.

Cexvia nevertheless gives its current Asset & solvency transparency dimension a 46/100 because recent continuous independently verifiable coverage remains limited in Cexvia's evidence dataset.

Does Kraken publish Proof of Reserves?

Yes.

Kraken publishes recurring Proof of Reserves reviews for covered assets and provides user verification.

Cexvia treats these reviews as evidence about specified assets and dates, not proof of complete group liabilities or future solvency.

Has Crypto.com been hacked?

Crypto.com disclosed a January 2022 incident involving unauthorized withdrawals affecting 483 users.

The company said affected users were fully reimbursed and introduced additional withdrawal-security measures.

Cexvia retains the incident as historical security evidence.

Has Kraken lost customer funds in a major core-exchange breach?

Kraken states that it has not suffered a major core-exchange security incident resulting in customer-fund loss since it began operating.

Historical performance is useful evidence but does not guarantee that a future incident cannot occur.

Is Crypto.com Onchain the same as the Crypto.com Exchange?

No.

Crypto.com Onchain is a self-custody product. The Crypto.com App and Exchange are centralized services.

Moving assets between them changes who controls the wallet credentials and therefore changes the risk model.

Which is better for EUR trading?

Kraken is especially oriented toward direct fiat and order-book trading and may be a strong candidate for EUR users.

The actual decision should use current BTC/EUR or other pair-level spread, depth, fees and SEPA costs rather than the brand's total global volume.

Conclusion

Crypto.com and Kraken should not be compared with one headline fee or one global licence.

The useful comparison is:

product → legal entity → regulatory scope → fiat route → pair liquidity → total cost → reserve evidence → security history → withdrawal route

Kraken currently has the stronger Cexvia risk profile and a clearer exchange-first proposition for users focused on fiat-funded trading and Kraken Pro.

Crypto.com offers the broader consumer ecosystem, combining its App and Exchange with cards, payments, CRO, Cronos and self-custody tools.

That breadth can be useful, but it also makes product-level entity verification more important.

For the Cexvia evidence-level safety comparison:

[Crypto.com vs Kraken: Risk & Licence Comparison](/compare/crypto-com-vs-kraken)

Individual profiles:

• [Crypto.com Risk Rating, Licences and Safety](/exchanges/crypto-com)
• [Kraken Risk Rating, Licences and Safety](/exchanges/kraken)

Related Research:

• [Crypto Exchanges in Europe: MiCA, Euro Funding, Custody and Access](/research/europe-crypto-exchanges-mica-euro-funding-custody)
• [How to Verify a Crypto Exchange License](/research/crypto-exchange-license-verification-entity-scope-domain)
• [Crypto Exchange Withdrawal Problems](/research/crypto-exchange-withdrawal-delays-holds-missing-transfers)

Primary sources and Cexvia resources

• Crypto.com Exchange — Spot Trading Fees
• Crypto.com — EEA Licences and Registrations
• Crypto.com — Security
• Crypto.com — One-Button Lock
• Kraken — Fee Schedule
• Kraken — Cross-Platform Fee Tier Changes
• Kraken — Where Is Kraken Licensed or Regulated?
• Kraken — Proof of Reserves
• Kraken — Security
• Cexvia — Crypto.com vs Kraken Risk & Licence Comparison
• Cexvia — Crypto.com Risk Profile
• Cexvia — Kraken Risk Profile
• Cexvia — Risk Radar
• Cexvia — Regulatory Atlas
• Cexvia — Methodology

*Cexvia evaluates centralized exchanges using publicly verifiable evidence across regulatory standing, corporate transparency, asset and solvency transparency, security history, and operations and user protection. Scores are evidence-based risk assessments, not guarantees of safety or recommendations to deposit or trade. Fees, products and regional availability can change and should be verified before use.*