In recent years, Kazakhstan has significantly grown in popularity among IT founders from the CIS region. Its appeal stems from features like zero taxes, straightforward banking, and relatively lenient compliance, all of which are genuinely available. However, behind this attractive picture lies a crucial detail often overlooked: “registering a company in Kazakhstan” isn’t a single solution, but at least two distinct options, each with fundamentally different implications.
Astana Hub and AIFC (Astana International Financial Centre) are frequently perceived as interchangeable options, with choices often made based on “what’s faster” or “what’s cheaper.” In practice, this is akin to choosing between a checking account and a broker’s license: both are financial instruments, but they serve entirely different purposes.
This article will explain the precise distinctions between these two regimes, identify which is suitable for whom, and illustrate why making the correct choice can save you months and tens of thousands of dollars.
Astana Hub: A Tech Park for IT Product Developers
Founded in 2018, Astana Hub today unites over 1500 residents with a combined export exceeding $280 million. Its operational logic is most similar to Georgia’s Virtual Zone Status or Uzbekistan’s IT Park: the government creates a preferential regime for companies that develop and sell software products, receiving tax revenues from employee salaries and growth in technology exports in return.
Tech park residents are exempt from corporate income tax, VAT on IT services, and—most notably—royalty tax. This last point significantly distinguishes Astana Hub from most regional counterparts: companies that license their proprietary developments to partners can receive these revenues with virtually no tax burden. Additionally, residents benefit from simplified procedures for hiring foreign specialists and access to state grant programs.
Important Nuance: The benefits at Astana Hub apply exclusively to income derived from IT activities. If a company also engages in trade, consulting, or has other non-core income, these revenues are taxed at the standard 20% corporate income tax rate. This isn’t an issue, but it requires careful structuring from the outset.
The tech park’s target audience is broad: SaaS products, mobile applications, gamedev studios, outsourcing and outstaffing companies, edtech, cybersecurity, and e-commerce platforms. If your main product is software or a digital service, Astana Hub is the natural choice.
AIFC: Not a Tax Regime, But a Separate Jurisdiction
The AIFC represents a fundamentally different construct. It is neither a tech park nor a special economic zone within the Kazakh legal system, but effectively a distinct jurisdiction with its own court (AIFC Court), independent regulator (AFSA), and company registry, operating on the principles of English common law. Its closest equivalents are the DIFC in Dubai and the QFC in Qatar.
Tax parameters in the AIFC are similar to Astana Hub: zero corporate income tax, zero VAT, and zero dividend tax. However, tax benefits are not the primary reason companies choose to register here.
The real value of AIFC lies in its legal architecture. English common law as the basis for corporate relations means international investors find familiar instruments: clear Shareholder Agreements (SHAs), convertible notes, veto rights, and liquidation preferences. Kazakh law does not readily accommodate such structures, and negotiating with a venture capital fund through the lens of local legislation is an unpromising endeavor.
Furthermore, AIFC provides access to regulated financial activities: payment services, asset management, lending, issuance of securities, and working with crypto assets within AFSA’s regulatory sandbox. All of these options are unavailable through Astana Hub.
What to Expect: Most financial activities within the AIFC require an AFSA license. This is not a mere administrative formality but a comprehensive regulatory process—involving capital requirements, a compliance officer, internal policies, and reporting obligations. The initial setup and annual maintenance costs are significantly higher than at Astana Hub. This expense is justifiable only if a license is truly needed for your operations; otherwise, it is unwarranted.
AIFC is worth considering for: fintech startups engaging in licensed activities, Web3 projects that value regulated status, companies seeking venture capital rounds from international funds, and holding structures operating across multiple jurisdictions.
Three Questions That Determine Everything
Are you attracting external funding? If yes, and investors expect familiar corporate mechanisms, AIFC is necessary. Astana Hub operates under Kazakh law, making it extremely difficult to structure a venture capital round on its basis.
Does your activity require a financial regulator’s license? Payment services, asset management, lending, and securities operations are only possible through AIFC with an AFSA license. Development, SaaS, and outsourcing can be seamlessly handled by Astana Hub without any special conditions.
How critical is the launch timeline? Astana Hub offers registration within two to three weeks. AIFC takes at least a month just for corporate registration, plus additional time if a license is required. All things being equal, this is a significant point in favor of the tech park.
Risks Seldom Discussed
Substance is not an option, but a requirement. Both regimes demand a genuine physical presence in the country. For Astana Hub, this means at least a registered office or co-working space and at least one resident employee in Kazakhstan. AIFC allows for a registered office rental, but operational activity must be real. A company without actual operations in the country risks losing its status upon the first audit.
Nexus ratio for IP. The zero royalty tax in Astana Hub comes with a caveat: according to OECD requirements, R&D expenses incurred to “create” intellectual property must be borne within that specific jurisdiction. This is a manageable requirement, but the cost structure needs to be established correctly from the outset, not retrospectively.
CFC Risks for Russian and Belarusian founders. Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules for Russian residents remain in effect, and a Kazakh structure does not automatically provide protection. It works, but only with genuine substance: a director in the country, operational bank accounts, and actual management from Kazakhstan.
Case Study: When the Right Question is More Valuable Than a Ready Answer
Initial Data: We were approached by David, co-founder of a B2B SaaS company originating from Tbilisi, who had relocated to Almaty in 2023. Their product was a platform automating HR processes for mid-sized businesses, with clients primarily in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. At the time of contact, the company operated through a Georgian LLC with Virtual Zone Status, but David faced a practical issue: Kazakh corporate clients preferred to work with a local legal entity to simplify procurement and tax accounting on their end. His request was: “I want to register a company in AIFC—it has English law, it sounds serious.” The team consisted of three developers in Almaty, one salesperson, and David as CEO. There were no plans for a venture capital round, and the company was not engaged in any licensed activities.
Our Approach: First, we analyzed the revenue model: 100% of income came from SaaS subscriptions, with no financial services, no royalties to third parties, and no investment rounds anticipated within the year. In this scenario, AIFC offered only one thing: a prestigious name on a business card and an additional $12,000–$15,000 in startup costs, plus annual compliance expenses. We recommended Astana Hub. Concurrently, we structured the employment relationships for the Kazakh team: the three developers were formally employed under local labor contracts with the tech park resident company. This simultaneously fulfilled the substance requirement and mitigated risks of reclassification as illegal outsourcing. The Georgian LLC with VZS was retained as an operational entity for clients outside Kazakhstan, avoiding unnecessary tax burdens through the Kazakh legal entity where it wasn’t required.
Result: The company launched within 18 business days of the initial call. Kazakh clients now had a local legal entity for their contracts. The tax burden for the Kazakh operations was 0% corporate income tax and 0% VAT. The savings compared to the AIFC scenario amounted to approximately $14,000 initially and around $8,000 annually in compliance costs. Eight months later, David returned with a different inquiry: one of his clients proposed a strategic partnership with an option for equity in the company. At that point, we discussed the conditions under which AIFC could be integrated into the structure as a holding element.
In Conclusion
Kazakhstan stands as one of the few markets in the region where the government has genuinely invested in creating infrastructure for technological businesses. Both Astana Hub and AIFC are effective. However, they serve different purposes, and mistaking one for the other, at best, leads to wasted time and money, and at worst, results in a structure that fails to address the actual problem.
The right question isn’t “which regime is better,” but “what exactly does my company need right now?”—whether it’s entering the Kazakh market, hiring a local team, attracting an investor, or obtaining a regulatory license. The answer to this question will dictate the choice of instrument.
