While tokenization and securitization are often compared as alternatives, they are increasingly being used together.

Securitization and tokenization are increasingly appearing in the same conversations, often treated as competing approaches to the same problem. They are not. Tokenization and securitization describe different processes, operate on different legal and infrastructure layers, and deliver different outcomes. The use cases overlap more than simple comparisons suggest, but the practical benefits can diverge significantly, and for asset managers building serious distribution, understanding that distinction is what shapes the right structure. 

Securitization is the process of wrapping specific assets or an investment strategy into a tradeable security with an ISIN. The AMC, the Tracker, and the CLN are the primary instruments: each creates a legal claim that a custodian bank can hold, that a client can buy through their existing account, and that settles through established market infrastructure. The ISIN is what makes something genuinely investible in the institutional sense. It removes the friction of bespoke arrangements, enables distribution across thousands of financial institutions, and brings the asset inside the compliance and reporting frameworks that professional investors already operate within. As Fabio Oertle, Head of Capital Markets at ISP, puts it: “Asset managers often come to us asking about tokenization when what they actually need is an ISIN. Those are different problems. We can help with both, but it matters which one you are solving for.” 

Tokenization records ownership and other rights on a distributed ledger, creating what Swiss law, under the DLT Act of 2021, recognizes as ledger-based securities. The practical benefits are real: programmable settlement, potential for fractional ownership, and access to new distribution channels through venues such as SDX and BX Digital. Tokenization also changes the architecture of how assets are held and transferred, which has long-term implications for infrastructure cost and settlement risk. What it does not automatically provide is distribution reach and custodian compatibility that comes with a conventional ISIN-based security. 

The more important point is that these two layers are not mutually exclusive. A securitized instrument can be tokenized: an AMC or CLN issued with a Swiss ISIN can subsequently be represented on-chain, combining the distribution reach of conventional infrastructure with the settlement and programmability benefits of the ledger layer. The direction works in reverse as well. A tracker certificate can be issued on a token or basket of tokens (for example tracker on Bitcoin), making crypto assets bankable. This symmetry matters. It means the structured products toolkit is already capable of bridging both worlds, and that the right structure depends on what the asset manager is trying to achieve, not on a binary choice between technologies. 

Tom Rieder, Head of Digital Assets at ISP, describes it this way: “Tokenization represents the next chapter of securitization. As capital markets digitize, institutional investors can increasingly access programmable securities. In practice, we are seeing the combination of both.” For asset managers evaluating their options in 2026, the practical starting point remains the same: define the distribution outcome you need, identify which infrastructure layer delivers it, and consider whether the other layer adds something meaningful on top. To discuss how securitization and tokenization fit your specific strategy, speak with Tom Rieder, Head of Digital Assets, or Fabio Oertle, Head of Capital Markets, at ISP.