1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
Guarda vs ZM MARKETS: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of Guarda (Guarda Wallet) and ZM MARKETS (ZM MARKETS) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Selected investment firm and financial institution records: Continental Europe
- Guarda 6D Score
- 5.0
- ZM MARKETS 6D Score
- 1.0
- Regulated Licences
- 0 vs 0
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
Guarda outranks ZM MARKETS by +4.0 pts in composite 6D scoring (5.0 vs 1.0)
On supervisory breadth, Guarda holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas ZM MARKETS 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 | ZM MARKETS | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 5.0 | 1.0 | +4.0 | Guarda |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 5.0 | 1.0 | +4.0 | Guarda |
| Execution & Software Infrastructure (industryScore) | 20% Weight | 3.0 | 1.0 | +2.0 | Guarda |
| User Reputation & Complaint Telemetry (userScore) | 20% Weight | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | Statistical Tie |
| Institutional Brand Longevity (brandScore) | 15% Weight | 5.0 | 1.0 | +4.0 | Guarda |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 5.0 | 1.0 | +4.0 | Guarda |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: Guarda vs ZM MARKETS
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 | ZM MARKETS |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Guarda Wallet | ZM MARKETS |
| 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 | Forex |
| 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 ZM MARKETS against other regulated peers in our selected investment firm and financial institution records: continental europe slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: Guarda vs ZM MARKETS
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: Guarda or ZM MARKETS?
Both Guarda and ZM MARKETS 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 ZM MARKETS 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 ZM MARKETS?
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 ZM MARKETS at 1.0 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 1.0, Brand: 1.0, Market Influence: 1.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0).
How do Guarda and ZM MARKETS differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
Guarda lists general financial services with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while ZM MARKETS lists Forex 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 ZM MARKETS?
Guarda carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while ZM MARKETS 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.