Last updated: 3 September 2026

Compare banking access by jurisdiction

Q: Why are there two ratings per jurisdiction?

Because they answer different questions. Local route is whether a business domiciled there can realistically open an account at an institution in that jurisdiction. Workable stack is whether the business can be banked at all, counting the multi-provider architecture of local accounts, EMIs elsewhere and correspondent relationships. A jurisdiction whose local route is rarely available while its stack is workable is the ordinary case, not an inconsistency. Collapsing the two into one number is exactly how the earlier contradiction on this site arose.

Two questions, kept apart. Whether an account is realistically available at an institution in a jurisdiction, and whether the business can be banked at all counting the multi-provider stack the network places. A jurisdiction can fail the first and pass the second, and that is the normal case rather than a contradiction.

Not sure which column is you? Ask Emma. She compares these jurisdictions in seconds, in your language.

0 of 0 match

Non-matching jurisdictions stay visible, dimmed, with the reason, so you can see what relaxing a filter would buy you. Ratings marked not rated are exactly that: no rating exists yet, which is not the same as poor access.

Each rating also carries how we arrived at it. read means we placed it from a real case or from our own published cost tables. inherited means we wrote it for a neighbouring vertical and carried it across: directionally sound, not read for this profile. inferred means it was placed by rule relative to another tier: treat it as a starting point and confirm it before you rely on it. Most stack bands are currently inherited, and saying so is the point.

[ About ]

About this comparator

This tool compares 55 jurisdictions on banking access. It exists because the same question was previously answered in two places on this site that did not agree with each other, and because banking access is the one thing a licensed operator has no honest published source for.

Because they answer different questions. Local route is whether a business domiciled there can realistically open an account at an institution in that jurisdiction. Workable stack is whether the business can be banked at all, counting the multi-provider architecture of local accounts, EMIs elsewhere and correspondent relationships.

A jurisdiction whose local route is rarely available while its stack is workable is the ordinary case, not an inconsistency. Collapsing the two into one number is exactly how the earlier contradiction on this site arose.

That no rating exists yet for that cell. It is not a poor score and should not be read as one. Coverage is published as it stands rather than filled in with estimates, because a comparator whose gaps are invisible is worse than one whose gaps are stated.

From the firm’s banking matrix, which is also what the jurisdiction table on the banking overview renders and what Emma reads. All three are generated from one file, so they cannot disagree.

Each record carries the month it was last updated, shown on its card.

Not on its own. These ratings describe the market; placement depends on the specific business, its licence status, its processing history and its documentation. The assessment is where that is established, and it is free.

Because those are recorded for 13 of 55 jurisdictions so far, and a filter over incomplete data silently hides jurisdictions that simply have not been rated. They are shown on the cards where known and will become filters when coverage supports it.

Banking access by jurisdiction. Local route and workable stack answer different questions: a jurisdiction can be hard to bank in locally and still perfectly bankable through a multi-provider stack.
Jurisdiction	Local route	Workable stack (crypto operator)	Local onboarding	Min. relationship	IBAN acceptance	Primary institution type
Abu Dhabi (ADGM)	Rarely	Moderate	1–4 weeks	AED 25,000-200,000	Non-SEPA	Onshore UAE banks with digital-asset units
Antigua and Barbuda	Rarely	Difficult	6–12 weeks	—	—	—
Argentina	Rarely	Difficult	—	—	—	—
Australia	Rarely	Difficult	8–24 weeks	—	—	—
Bahamas	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Belize	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Bermuda	Rarely	Difficult	—	—	—	—
British Virgin Islands	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Bulgaria	Rarely	Difficult	8–24 weeks	—	—	—
Canada	Rarely	Difficult	—	—	—	—
Cayman Islands	Rarely	Moderate	8–24 weeks	—	—	—
Comoros (Anjouan)	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Costa Rica	Selective	Moderate	4–12 weeks	—	—	—
Cyprus	Rarely	Moderate	4–8 weeks	EUR 50,000+	Moderate	Cypriot banks serving CySEC licensees
Czech Republic	Selective	Moderate	4–8 weeks	EUR 10,000+	High	CNB-authorised CASPs and EMIs
Dominica	Rarely	Difficult	—	—	—	—
El Salvador	Rarely	Difficult	3–8 weeks	—	—	—
Estonia	Selective	Moderate	—	—	—	—
Georgia	Rarely	Moderate	4–8 weeks	—	—	—
Germany	Selective	Moderate	6–12 weeks	EUR 25,000+	High	BaFin-licensed commercial banks with crypto desks
Gibraltar	Rarely	Moderate	4–12 weeks	—	—	—
Hong Kong	Rarely	Moderate	8–24 weeks	—	—	—
Ireland	Rarely	Moderate	6–12 weeks	EUR 25,000+	High	Central Bank of Ireland-licensed EMIs
Isle of Man	Available	Moderate	4–8 weeks	GBP 25,000+	High	Isle of Man banks (local banking mandated by the gambling regime)
Kazakhstan	Rarely	Moderate	4–12 weeks	—	—	—
Kyrgyzstan	Rarely	Difficult	—	—	—	—
Labuan (Malaysia)	Rarely	Difficult	—	—	—	—
Latvia	Rarely	Moderate	6–12 weeks	—	—	—
Lithuania	Rarely	Moderate	2–6 weeks	EUR 10,000+	Moderate	Bank of Lithuania-authorised EMIs (80; regulator page updated 2 July 2026)
Macau	Rarely	Not rated	—	—	—	—
Malta	Rarely	Moderate	4–8 weeks	EUR 25,000+	Low	Maltese banks serving MGA licensees
Marshall Islands	Rarely	Difficult	6–12 weeks	—	—	—
Mauritius	Selective	Difficult	8–24 weeks	—	—	—
Netherlands	Selective	Moderate	2–6 weeks	EUR 50,000+	High	DNB-licensed EMIs and banks (~9 EMIs)
Nevis (Federation of Saint Kitts and Nevis)	Rarely	Difficult	2–6 weeks	—	—	—
New Zealand	Rarely	Difficult	4–12 weeks	—	—	—
Oman	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Panama	Rarely	Difficult	4–12 weeks	—	—	—
Poland	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Portugal	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Romania	Rarely	Difficult	8–12 weeks	—	—	—
Saint Kitts and Nevis	Rarely	Difficult	2–6 weeks	—	—	—
Saint Lucia	Rarely	Difficult	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Rarely	Difficult	4–12 weeks	—	—	—
Seychelles	Rarely	Difficult	4–16 weeks	—	—	—
Singapore	Selective	Moderate	4–12 weeks	SGD 50,000+	Non-SEPA	MAS-licensed banks serving DPT holders (34-35 licensees)
Slovakia	Rarely	Moderate	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
South Africa	Rarely	Moderate	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Spain	Rarely	Moderate	8–16 weeks	—	—	—
Switzerland	Rarely	Easy	2–12 weeks	CHF 100,000-500,000	High	FINMA-supervised digital-asset banks
United Arab Emirates (incl. ADGM)	Rarely	Easy	1–4 weeks	AED 25,000-200,000	Non-SEPA	Onshore UAE banks with digital-asset units
United Kingdom	Selective	Difficult	4–12 weeks	GBP 25,000+	High	FCA-authorised EMIs (300+)
United States (Delaware)	Rarely	Not rated	—	—	—	—
Uzbekistan	Rarely	Easy	—	—	—	—
Vanuatu	Rarely	Difficult	—	—	—	—

Compare banking access by jurisdiction

Results

About this comparator