1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
Friedberg Direct vs Uphold wallet: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of Friedberg Direct (Friedberg Mercantile Group Ltd.) and Uphold wallet (Uphold wallet) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Selected institution records: United States and Canada
- Friedberg Direct 6D Score
- 2.0
- Uphold wallet 6D Score
- 2.0
- Regulated Licences
- 1 vs 4
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
Friedberg Direct and Uphold wallet are statistically tied in composite 6D scoring (2.0 vs 2.0)
On supervisory breadth, Friedberg Direct holds 1 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 1 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas Uphold wallet holds 4 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 4 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 | Friedberg Direct | Uphold wallet | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 1.0 | 3.0 | +2.0 | Uphold wallet |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 2.0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: Friedberg Direct vs Uphold 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 | Friedberg Direct | Uphold wallet |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Friedberg Mercantile Group Ltd. | Uphold wallet |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 1 regulated / 1 total (0 Tier-1) | 4 regulated / 4 total (0 Tier-1) |
| Recorded Certificate Numbers | ||
| Registered Domicile / Address | Five Lamps Place Amiens Street, Dublin 1 Ireland Ava Capital Markets Pty Ltd C/O WeWork Ground Floor, 320 Pitt Street Sydney NSW 2000 SOHO Shangdu, Chaoyang District, Beijing | United States New York |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Indices, Forex, Stocks, Commodities | Move, convert, hold and trade any form of currency or commodity |
| 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 Friedberg Direct and Uphold wallet against other regulated peers in our selected institution records: united states and canada slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: Friedberg Direct vs Uphold wallet
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: Friedberg Direct or Uphold wallet?
Uphold wallet holds more active regulated filings (4 vs 1). Specifically, Friedberg Direct maintains 1 total recorded filing(s) (IIROC) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas Uphold wallet maintains 4 recorded filing(s) (MSC, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Financial Conduct Authority, Financial Crime Investigation Service of Lithuania (FNTT / FCIS)) 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 Friedberg Direct and Uphold wallet?
In AlphaPulse Finance's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), Friedberg Direct 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 Uphold wallet at 2.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 2.0, Brand: 2.0, Market Influence: 2.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 3.0).
How do Friedberg Direct and Uphold wallet differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
Friedberg Direct lists Indices, Forex, Stocks, Commodities with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while Uphold wallet lists Move, convert, hold and trade any form of currency or commodity 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: Friedberg Direct or Uphold wallet?
Friedberg Direct carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while Uphold 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.