1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
Guarda vs hae.sh: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of Guarda (Guarda Wallet) and hae.sh (hae.sh GmbH) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Investment firms and financial institutions headquartered across Continental Europe
- Guarda 6D Score
- 5.0
- hae.sh 6D Score
- 5.0
- Regulated Licences
- 0 vs 0
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
Guarda and hae.sh are statistically tied in composite 6D scoring (5.0 vs 5.0)
On supervisory breadth, Guarda holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas hae.sh 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 | Guarda | hae.sh | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 3.0 | 3.0 | 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 | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 5.0 | 5.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: Guarda vs hae.sh
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 | Guarda | hae.sh |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Guarda Wallet | hae.sh GmbH |
| 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 | Wahringerstraße 34 | BG 11 4030 Linz |
| Offered Asset Classes & Services | Multi-asset financial services | Multi-asset financial services |
| 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 Guarda and hae.sh against other regulated peers in our investment firms and financial institutions headquartered across continental europe slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: Guarda vs hae.sh
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: Guarda or hae.sh?
Both Guarda and hae.sh hold 0 regulated licence record(s) in our dataset. Specifically, Guarda maintains 0 total recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas hae.sh 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 Guarda and hae.sh?
In Euro Firm Ledger's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), Guarda records an Overall Score of 5.0 (Risk & Licensing: 5.0, Brand: 5.0, Market Influence: 5.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 3.0), compared with hae.sh at 5.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 5.0, Brand: 5.0, Market Influence: 5.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 3.0).
How do Guarda and hae.sh differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
Guarda lists general financial services with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while hae.sh 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: Guarda or hae.sh?
Guarda carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while hae.sh 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.