1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
aobit vs CentoGX: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of aobit (remixpoint) and CentoGX (CentoGX) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Selected international company and brokerage records: offshore jurisdictions
CentoGX outranks aobit by +2.0 pts in composite 6D scoring (5.0 vs 3.0)
On supervisory breadth, aobit holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas CentoGX 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 | aobit | CentoGX | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 3.0 | 5.0 | +2.0 | CentoGX |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 3.0 | 0.0 | +3.0 | aobit |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 3.0 | 0.0 | +3.0 | aobit |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 3.0 | 0.0 | +3.0 | aobit |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: aobit vs CentoGX
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 | aobit | CentoGX |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | remixpoint | CentoGX |
| Source Risk Classification | Risk level not supplied | Risk level not supplied |
| Active Regulated / Total Filings | 0 regulated / 0 total (0 Tier-1) | 0 regulated / 0 total (0 Tier-1) |
| Recorded Certificate Numbers | None on file | None on file |
| Registered Domicile / Address | - | International |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Trading | Multi-asset financial services |
| Execution Software & Terminals | Proprietary / Web Platform | Proprietary / Web Platform |
| Supported Client Languages | English, Japanese, Traditional Chinese, German, Korean, and more than ten widely used languages in total | English |
| Warning / Exposure Count | 0 recorded warning(s) | 0 recorded warning(s) |
| Specialized Sub-Page Audits |
Related 1v1 Institutional Comparisons
Compare aobit and CentoGX against other regulated peers in our selected international company and brokerage records: offshore jurisdictions slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: aobit vs CentoGX
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: aobit or CentoGX?
Both aobit and CentoGX hold 0 regulated licence record(s) in our dataset. Specifically, aobit maintains 0 total recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas CentoGX 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 aobit and CentoGX?
In Offshore Firm Ledger's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), aobit records an Overall Score of 3.0 (Risk & Licensing: 3.0, Brand: 3.0, Market Influence: 3.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0), compared with CentoGX at 5.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 0.0, Brand: 0.0, Market Influence: 0.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0).
How do aobit and CentoGX differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
aobit lists Trading with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while CentoGX lists general financial services 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: aobit or CentoGX?
aobit carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while CentoGX 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.