Arch vs Bundles: Which crypto index fits you? (2026)

Arch and Bundles both package several crypto assets into a single investment, but they work in different ways. Arch offers index funds and tokenized portfolio products on Ethereum and Polygon, with options including Bitcoin-focused, diversified and risk-profile funds. Its service is aimed mainly at Spanish-speaking investors in Latin America. Bundles is an Ethereum protocol: each bundle is an ERC-20 token representing a basket of assets, and allocations are described as automatically rebalancing.

The clearest practical distinction is how much of the experience is managed for you. Arch offers account sign-up by email or Gmail as well as wallet connection, and lists advisory plans at higher account tiers. Bundles centers on on-chain tokens and lets users create and manage bundles. Its bundles must include at least 5% BUN, so the native token is part of the exposure. Choose based on whether you want a fund-oriented service or an Ethereum-native index token.

Arch's products emphasize curated exposure: a Bitcoin-plus product, a diversified cryptocurrency fund and portfolios matched to a user's risk profile. Its Digital plan starts at $50, while Preferente and Alto Patrimonio are listed at $10,000 and $100,000 respectively; these are account levels, not published fee rates. Arch also describes human support on weekdays and personal advisers for higher tiers.

Bundles offers curated bundle styles such as Core, Blue Chip and Good Fortune, as well as tools for users to create their own bundles. The homepage describes automatic rebalancing to maintain target allocations. Bundles says one transaction can save time and gas compared with buying each asset separately, but ordinary Ethereum gas still applies. Neither project publishes a complete fee table. Bundles does not state management, performance, entry or exit charges; Arch's management fees, spreads and network costs are also not published. Check the applicable costs in each platform before investing.

Arch has two audits listed, but the audit firms and scope are not named. The project says transactions are recorded on-chain and client assets are kept separate from Arch and other clients. Its regulatory registration with Chile's CMF is still in process, so do not treat it as registered. Arch also requires identity verification for withdrawals, and its legal notice says Smash Works Inc. is not a registered investment adviser, broker or dealer.

Bundles has no listed audits. It does not publish details about custody, admin keys or incident history, which leaves important questions about protocol controls unanswered. Each bundle also includes BUN, and bundles may contain wrapped or tokenized assets such as WBTC, wstETH and PAXG, adding risks beyond the protocol itself. Neither product removes the risk of losing money: crypto assets can be volatile, and smart-contract, counterparty and underlying-asset risks apply. Bundles' on-chain format is not the same as audited safety.

Arch has the larger set of access options for users who do not want to manage everything through a wallet. It supports email or Gmail registration and wallet connection, and it lists bank withdrawals in Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Argentina and Peru. Its homepage is mainly Spanish and its products are focused on Latin American investors, so it may be a poor fit if you need a service designed for another region. Bank transfer minimums and payment-provider limits also apply.

Bundles is more directly suited to users already comfortable with Ethereum and ERC-20 tokens. Its automatic rebalancing and one-token basket design can reduce manual allocation work, but it does not remove the need to understand the underlying assets, BUN exposure and network costs. Both projects have modest TVL, with Bundles higher at about $280,252 versus Arch at about $87,371. TVL alone does not establish liquidity or safety, so check whether you can trade or withdraw the specific product you intend to use.

Choose Arch if you want a fund-style route to crypto baskets, value email sign-up or local bank withdrawals, and are investing from one of its Latin American markets. Its two listed audits provide more published audit evidence than Bundles, but the firms and scope are not named, its fees are unclear, and its Chilean registration remains in progress. Do not assume that the listed account tiers are charges.

Choose Bundles if you specifically want Ethereum-based ERC-20 baskets with automatic rebalancing or want to create your own bundle. Its higher TVL does not offset the absence of listed audits, the short track record or the required BUN allocation. If clear published fees or strong public audit documentation are essential to your decision, neither is a straightforward choice: both leave material details undisclosed, and Bundles has the weaker published audit picture.