1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
CentoGX vs Shade Protocol: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of CentoGX (CentoGX) and Shade Protocol (Shade Protocol) 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 Shade Protocol by +3.0 pts in composite 6D scoring (5.0 vs 2.0)
On supervisory breadth, CentoGX holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas Shade Protocol 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 | CentoGX | Shade Protocol | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 5.0 | 2.0 | +3.0 | CentoGX |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 0.0 | 2.0 | +2.0 | Shade Protocol |
| 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 | 0.0 | 2.0 | +2.0 | Shade Protocol |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 0.0 | 2.0 | +2.0 | Shade Protocol |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: CentoGX vs Shade Protocol
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 | CentoGX | Shade Protocol |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | CentoGX | Shade Protocol |
| 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 | International |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Multi-asset financial services | Trading |
| 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 CentoGX and Shade Protocol against other regulated peers in our selected international company and brokerage records: offshore jurisdictions slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: CentoGX vs Shade Protocol
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: CentoGX or Shade Protocol?
Both CentoGX and Shade Protocol hold 0 regulated licence record(s) in our dataset. Specifically, CentoGX maintains 0 total recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas Shade Protocol 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 CentoGX and Shade Protocol?
In Offshore Firm Ledger's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), CentoGX records an Overall Score of 5.0 (Risk & Licensing: 0.0, Brand: 0.0, Market Influence: 0.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0), compared with Shade Protocol at 2.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 2.0, Brand: 2.0, Market Influence: 2.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0).
How do CentoGX and Shade Protocol differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
CentoGX lists general financial services with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while Shade Protocol lists Trading 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: CentoGX or Shade Protocol?
CentoGX carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while Shade Protocol 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.