1v1 Institutional Counterparty Comparison
NUM vs Teahouse Finance: Regulation, 6D Ratings & Safety Audit
Deterministic head-to-head benchmarking of NUM (Numbers Protocol) and Teahouse Finance (Teahouse Finance Co., Ltd.) across primary regulatory filings, statutory Tier-1 authorisations, 6-Dimension compliance scores, execution software, and warning exposure.
Coverage: Selected institution records: Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
- NUM 6D Score
- 2.0
- Teahouse Finance 6D Score
- 1.6
- Regulated Licences
- 0 vs 0
- Warning Flags
- 0 vs 0
NUM outranks Teahouse Finance by +0.4 pts in composite 6D scoring (2.0 vs 1.6)
On supervisory breadth, NUM holds 0 active regulated licence(s) (0 Tier-1) out of 0 total filings and 0 warning count(s), whereas Teahouse Finance 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 | NUM | Teahouse Finance | Score Delta | Dimension Leader |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Composite 6D Score | 100% Composite | 2.0 | 1.6 | +0.4 | NUM |
| Regulatory & Licensing Integrity (riskScore) | 30% Weight | 2.0 | 1.9 | +0.1 | NUM |
| 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 | 2.0 | 1.4 | +0.6 | NUM |
| Global Market Influence & Footprint (influenceScore) | 15% Weight | 2.0 | 1.5 | +0.5 | NUM |
Visual Architecture Benchmark: NUM vs Teahouse Finance
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 | NUM | Teahouse Finance |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Legal Name | Numbers Protocol | Teahouse Finance Co., Ltd. |
| 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 | - | No. 189, Section 2, Keelung Rd, Xinyi District, Taipei, Taiwan |
| 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 NUM and Teahouse Finance against other regulated peers in our selected institution records: asia-pacific and the middle east slice.
Frequently Asked Questions: NUM vs Teahouse Finance
Deterministic counterparty comparison answers derived from supervisory records.
Which institution has stronger regulatory oversight: NUM or Teahouse Finance?
Both NUM and Teahouse Finance hold 0 regulated licence record(s) in our dataset. Specifically, NUM maintains 0 total recorded filing(s) (none on file) with 0 warning flag(s), whereas Teahouse Finance 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 NUM and Teahouse Finance?
In APAC Capital Brief's 6-Dimension scoring matrix (0.0–10.0 scale), NUM records an Overall Score of 2.0 (Risk & Licensing: 2.0, Brand: 2.0, Market Influence: 2.0, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0), compared with Teahouse Finance at 1.6 Overall (Risk & Licensing: 1.9, Brand: 1.4, Market Influence: 1.5, User Reputation: 0.0, Execution & Software: 1.0).
How do NUM and Teahouse Finance differ in trading platforms and asset classes?
NUM lists general financial services with execution software [proprietary/web execution], while Teahouse Finance 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: NUM or Teahouse Finance?
NUM carries a "Risk level not supplied" classification with 0 warning/exposure count(s) and 0 user comment(s), while Teahouse Finance 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.