Quadra

Name: Quadra
Brand: Quadra

AI Native

Empowering institutional trading in digital assets

Est 2023|Valuation $7.2M|Raised $13.4M|1 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 3K|Website|FTEs 19|HQ London, England, GB

MarketsBrokerage Infrastructure & API Brokers Clearing & Settlement Infrastructure

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Quadra vs Talos: Talos has a more established public presence with published product scope and vendor-published platform metrics. Quadra's public materials are more limited in scope and in independently verifiable metrics. - Quadra vs Fireblocks: Fireblocks is primarily infrastructure (wallets, network, policy engine). Quadra positions itself as an integrated execution/risk/trading lifecycle platform; the two can be complementary in some technology stacks. - Quadra vs Copper: Copper is a custody/collateral/settlement provider and is a Coinmatch partner for collateral/settlement. Buyers should clarify how Coinmatch and custody/settlement roles would integrate with existing prime/custody arrangements.

Customer testimonials comparing vendors

No direct side-by-side customer quotes were found in this research pass.

Adoption trends

Talos publishes vendor-published adoption metrics publicly. No equivalent public "by the numbers" dashboard for Quadra was found in this research pass.

	Quadra	Talos	Fireblocks
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (demo-based)	Not publicly listed for institutional trading platform (demo-based)	Entry-level tier published (time-limited trial); custom enterprise pricing available
Primary use case	Institutions seeking unified trading, risk, and post-trade workflows; OTC derivatives RFQ via Coinmatch	Institutions needing broad venue connectivity, RFQ, execution algos, OMS-style workflow	Institutions needing wallet infrastructure, secure transfer network, exchange connectivity, policy controls
Key Strength	Coinmatch OTC derivatives RFQ combined with collateral/settlement integration; execution-algo partnerships	Broad institutional trading feature set, RFQ, smart order routing; vendor-published platform metrics	Transparent entry pricing for basic tiers; infrastructure/security focus; broad counterparty network
Key Weakness	Limited public disclosure on certifications, uptime, and independent customer reviews; external site-reputation flags	Pricing not public; may be more complex for smaller teams	Not a full OEMS/trading workstation by itself; often requires pairing with trading/risk systems

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Quadra vs Talos: Talos has a more established public presence with published product scope and vendor-published platform metrics. Quadra's public materials are more limited in scope and in independently verifiable metrics.
Quadra vs Fireblocks: Fireblocks is primarily infrastructure (wallets, network, policy engine). Quadra positions itself as an integrated execution/risk/trading lifecycle platform; the two can be complementary in some technology stacks.
Quadra vs Copper: Copper is a custody/collateral/settlement provider and is a Coinmatch partner for collateral/settlement. Buyers should clarify how Coinmatch and custody/settlement roles would integrate with existing prime/custody arrangements.

Customer testimonials comparing vendors

No direct side-by-side customer quotes were found in this research pass.

Adoption trends

Talos publishes vendor-published adoption metrics publicly. No equivalent public "by the numbers" dashboard for Quadra was found in this research pass.

	Quadra	Talos	Fireblocks
Starting Price	Not publicly listed (demo-based)	Not publicly listed for institutional trading platform (demo-based)	Entry-level tier published (time-limited trial); custom enterprise pricing available
Primary use case	Institutions seeking unified trading, risk, and post-trade workflows; OTC derivatives RFQ via Coinmatch	Institutions needing broad venue connectivity, RFQ, execution algos, OMS-style workflow	Institutions needing wallet infrastructure, secure transfer network, exchange connectivity, policy controls
Key Strength	Coinmatch OTC derivatives RFQ combined with collateral/settlement integration; execution-algo partnerships	Broad institutional trading feature set, RFQ, smart order routing; vendor-published platform metrics	Transparent entry pricing for basic tiers; infrastructure/security focus; broad counterparty network
Key Weakness	Limited public disclosure on certifications, uptime, and independent customer reviews; external site-reputation flags	Pricing not public; may be more complex for smaller teams	Not a full OEMS/trading workstation by itself; often requires pairing with trading/risk systems