White label crypto wallet pricing isn’t one flat price for every project. Cost depends on what you’re launching: supported chains, token standards, swaps, fiat on/off-ramps, compliance modules, and the ownership model (subscription vs license).
In this guide, we break down the main cost drivers and show how to estimate your budget. If you want a production-ready option, see our white label non-custodial crypto wallet solution.
If you’re budgeting for a wallet, it helps to treat the wallet as a product system, not a single app screen. The headline price usually changes for two reasons: you expand functional scope (more chains, swaps, fiat), or you raise the reliability bar (monitoring, security hardening, compliance flows). That’s why the white label crypto wallet cost rarely moves because of “UI polish” alone. It moves because the wallet must behave consistently in real-world conditions: network congestion, failed transactions, RPC outages, volatile swap quotes, and users who expect instant support answers.
At a high level, the white label crypto wallet price is shaped by how broad your launch is, and how strict your operational requirements are. Those two decisions define the real scope.
Before you estimate features, decide how you want to own the product. A subscription model (WaaS) usually reduces upfront spend and speeds up launch because the baseline is already packaged and maintained. This works well when your roadmap is still forming and you want to validate demand quickly, without committing to heavy custom work immediately. You get predictable monthly costs and a cleaner starting point.
A one-time license with customization behaves differently. You typically invest more at the beginning because you’re buying more control: deeper branding, deeper changes to flows, and less dependency on a vendor long-term. This approach often suits teams who already know their requirements and expect to iterate for years, not months. The tradeoff is that you’ll make more architecture and scope decisions early.
Most wallet estimates change when you add modules that touch “real-world complexity.” These are the pieces that require deeper integration, more QA, and more operational readiness.
Multi-chain is rarely just “add a chain.” Each new network adds its own transaction patterns, fee behavior, and failure modes. Even when chains look similar on paper, production conditions are different: RPC performance varies, indexers behave differently, token metadata can be inconsistent, and users expect a clean experience regardless of network quirks. So, the more networks you support at launch, the more time goes into testing, fallback logic, and making sure balances and histories stay accurate.
A practical approach is to start with a small set of chains that match your audience, then expand once you see traction. That keeps v1 stable and reduces the number of unknowns.
Swaps can quickly become a “core expectation,” but they’re also one of the most UX-sensitive modules. Users don’t judge swaps by how they work in a demo—they judge them when markets move fast. That’s why the scope increases when you want better routing, clear slippage handling, reliable quotes, and transparent fees. You also need to handle the uncomfortable realities: a user tries to swap a thin-liquidity token, the quote changes, a transaction fails, or the network is congested. A robust swaps experience is essentially a reliability project, not just a feature checkbox.
Fiat is where budgeting becomes very practical, very quickly. The cost impact is not only integration—it’s the combination of region coverage, payment behavior, and compliance flow. If you want fiat in multiple regions, you’ll likely deal with different payment methods, different user expectations, and more QA time across devices and currencies. Card-based flows can introduce disputes and chargebacks; bank flows introduce settlement delays and reconciliation nuances.
The best way to keep fiat scope under control is to define your launch region and your must-have payment methods. A focused rollout usually costs less and launches faster than a “global from day one” plan.
KYC/AML is not always required for a non-custodial wallet, but it often becomes relevant when fiat flows are involved or when you launch in regulated markets. Budget-wise, this module affects more than an API connection. It changes the user journey (verification steps, retries, failure states), and it changes your operational setup (admin review tools, audit logs, and data handling practices). If you keep KYC/AML optional and apply it only where necessary, you can reduce friction for the majority of users while still meeting market requirements.
For business accounts, treasuries, or teams, a multi-signature wallet adds real value—because it enforces approvals and reduces single-point risk. But it also changes how the wallet works at a fundamental level. You’re no longer building a simple “sign and send” flow; you’re building proposals, approvals, roles, and clear status visibility. That’s why it typically increases scope and QA effort.
White label is usually the best fit when you want to ship fast, validate demand, and expand your product step by step. Custom becomes worth it when your differentiation depends on non-standard flows or strict constraints. If your wallet is part of a larger system (a super app, a banking-like product, an enterprise environment), you may need deeper integration that packaged solutions can’t support without major changes.
If you want to see how wallet scope evolves from MVP to an advanced product, you can reference our overview wallet development.
Security requirements often change the scope: key storage, backups, monitoring, and optional multi-sig. If you want a deeper breakdown, see our guide to the security of white label non-custodial crypto wallets.
This is also the area where vague requirements cause the biggest delays. If you define security expectations early, you avoid rework and reduce the risk of “surprise scope” later.
Our base white label wallet launch package starts at $10,000. This typically covers the core wallet setup, standard branding, and a baseline launch configuration.
Final pricing depends on supported chains, swaps, fiat on/off-ramps, KYC/AML, and custom modules. Third-party provider fees (on-ramps, KYC vendors) are billed separately.
Yes. It adds integration work, compliance flow, and additional UX/testing across regions and payment methods. The broader your rollout, the more QA and edge cases you should plan for.
Not always. Many teams keep KYC/AML optional and enable it only for fiat flows or regulated markets. The right approach depends on your target regions and product positioning.
Usually yes, because it affects key management logic, approvals, and admin controls, especially for business/treasury use cases.
If you’re evaluating a production-ready option, explore our white label non-custodial crypto wallet solution.
