Wyoming vs Nevada vs New Mexico — The Privacy Triangle, Checked
Comparison across three states commonly marketed together as the privacy-friendly LLC trio. Source matrices: entity-innovation-availability-by-state, member-name-visibility-by-state, business-registry-searchability-by-state, llc-charging-order-protection-by-state, asset-protection-trust-states, domestic-llc-annual-renewal-rules-by-state, entity-tax-burden-by-state. This page covers Wyoming/Nevada/New Mexico specifically — for the separate Wyoming/Delaware/New Mexico anonymous-formation comparison, see that page instead of restating it here.
Private Pierce is not a law firm.
Short answer
Wyoming and Nevada get marketed as an interchangeable pair for LLC privacy, and at formation they are: neither requires a member or manager name on the Articles of Organization. They stop being equivalent immediately after formation. Wyoming has no ongoing filing that discloses members or managers. Nevada does — its required annual list must name the managers or managing members, and that filing is publicly searchable by officer name on the Secretary of State's own portal. New Mexico sits apart from both: no member/manager disclosure at any point, but also no annual report of any kind, a state income tax Wyoming and Nevada don't have, and the weakest charging-order statute of the three.
Comparison
| Dimension | Wyoming | Nevada | New Mexico |
|---|---|---|---|
| Member/manager name on Articles of Organization? | No | No | No |
| Member/manager names publicly disclosed at any point? | No | Yes — required annually on the public annual list | No |
| Annual report required? | Yes (no member/manager disclosure) | Yes (must list managers/managing members) | None required |
| Annual state fee | $60 minimum | $150.00 | None |
| Charging order the exclusive remedy? | Yes, no single-member carve-out | Yes, no single-member carve-out | Not stated as exclusive |
| Self-settled asset protection trust available? | Yes | Yes | No |
| State personal income tax? | No | No | Yes |
| Registry publicly searchable by officer/member name? | Portal inaccessible to automated checks (CAPTCHA-walled) | Yes | Not independently confirmed (portal not observable) |
| Entity-innovation options (Close/Series/DAO LLC, lifetime proxy) | 4 of 4 available | 1 of 4 (series LLC); a narrower Close-LLC analog exists for a different purpose | 0 of 4 |
The Nevada surprise: the annual list is a public member roster
Nevada's Articles of Organization work the same way Wyoming's and New Mexico's do — no member or manager has to be named to form the LLC. What changes the picture is what happens next. Nevada requires an annual list filing (Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 86.263 et seq.), and the underlying matrix records it directly: the filing "must include the list of manager and members," and Nevada's Secretary of State registry search confirms entities are searchable by officer name on the state's own portal. Wyoming has no equivalent requirement anywhere in its annual report. A comparison that stops at the formation-layer question — which is where most "anonymous LLC state" lists stop — misses this entirely, because Wyoming and Nevada look identical at that one layer and diverge completely one filing later.
Charging order and asset protection: Wyoming and Nevada track together, New Mexico doesn't
On the specific question of whether a charging order is a judgment creditor's exclusive remedy against an LLC membership interest, Wyoming (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-29-503) and Nevada (Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.401) both say yes, with no textual carve-out for single-member LLCs. New Mexico's LLC Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. § 53-19-35) does not make the same claim — the statute does not state the charging order is exclusive. Wyoming and Nevada also both authorize a self-settled asset protection trust (Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 4-10-510 to 4-10-523; Nev. Rev. Stat. §§ 166.015 et seq.) — Nevada's version requires a Nevada-resident or Nevada-office trustee and a 2-year (or 6-month-from-discovery) fraud-challenge window, close in shape to Wyoming's. New Mexico has no self-settled asset protection trust statute at all.
Entity innovation: Wyoming is well ahead of both
Of the four entity-innovation fields this site tracks, Wyoming is a "yes" on all four: Close LLC, Series LLC, DAO LLC, and an unqualified statutory member-proxy right. Nevada authorizes Series LLC formation and has a narrower "Restricted Limited-Liability Company" election (a 10-year distribution lock used mainly for estate and gift-tax valuation-discount planning, not the broader governance flexibility Wyoming's Close LLC election allows) — no DAO LLC election, and no proxy-voting language anywhere in its LLC act. New Mexico's 1993-vintage LLC Act has none of the four. See the Close LLC and Series LLC explainers for the full 51-state picture.
Cost and tax posture
New Mexico is the cheapest to maintain — no annual report, no recurring state fee — but it is the only one of the three with a state personal income tax, which reaches an LLC's pass-through income for a resident member. Wyoming and Nevada both have no state income tax, but their ongoing state fees differ by more than double: Wyoming's annual license tax is $60 minimum; Nevada's annual list and business license fee is $150, with a $175 late penalty if missed. None of this changes what a member's own home state charges if they live elsewhere — that depends on the member's residence, not the LLC's formation state.
Misconceptions
- "Nevada is as private as Wyoming." Not after formation. Nevada's required annual list is a public member/manager roster; Wyoming has nothing equivalent.
- "New Mexico is the private option because it has no annual report." No annual report means no recurring disclosure trigger, which is real — but New Mexico also has the weakest charging-order statute of the three and no asset protection trust option, so "no ongoing filing" and "strong asset protection" are different questions with different answers here.
- "These three states are interchangeable." They cluster on formation-layer anonymity and diverge everywhere past it — ongoing disclosure, charging-order strength, asset-protection-trust availability, entity-innovation options, and cost all differ.
What this page does not prove
- Registry searchability is a snapshot, not a guarantee. Portal behavior (CAPTCHA walls, SPA rendering) affects what this project could observe, not necessarily what a determined third party could find by other means.
- This is not a recommendation. Which state fits a given LLC depends on where its owners live, what it does, and facts this comparison does not have. This page states differences; it does not tell any specific reader which is right for them.
- Foreign-qualification exposure in an operating state applies to all three the same way the existing Wyoming/Delaware/New Mexico comparison already covers — see that page rather than this one for the CA/NY foreign-qualification mechanics.
See also: Wyoming vs Delaware vs New Mexico — Anonymous LLC Formation Triad · Entity Innovation Availability by State (matrix) · LLC Charging Order Protection by State (matrix)
Frequently asked questions
Are Wyoming, Nevada, and New Mexico equally private for an LLC?
No. Wyoming and New Mexico do not require member or manager names on any public filing. Nevada does: its annual list — required every year — must include the names of managers or managing members, and that filing is publicly searchable, including by officer name. Nevada's privacy reputation applies at formation, not afterward.
Why does Nevada have a privacy-state reputation if its annual list discloses members?
Nevada's Articles of Organization, like Wyoming's and New Mexico's, don't require naming a member or manager at formation — that's the layer most comparisons stop at. The annual list, filed after formation and every year afterward, is a separate requirement most formation-focused comparisons don't carry through to.
Which of the three has the strongest charging-order protection?
Wyoming and Nevada both make the charging order the exclusive remedy against an LLC membership interest, with no single-member carve-out (Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 17-29-503; Nev. Rev. Stat. § 86.401). New Mexico's statute does not state that the charging order is an exclusive remedy at all — the weakest of the three on this specific question.
Which has the lowest ongoing cost?
New Mexico: no annual report and no recurring state fee for a standard LLC. Wyoming's annual license tax is $60 minimum. Nevada's annual list and business license fee is $150, with a $175 late fee if missed — the most expensive of the three to maintain.
Where is the structured data behind this comparison?
/business-formation/entity-innovation-availability-by-state/, /business-formation/member-name-visibility-by-state/, /asset-protection/llc-charging-order-protection-by-state/, /asset-protection/asset-protection-trust-states/, and /business-formation/domestic-llc-annual-renewal-rules-by-state/ — each cites its own primary source per state.
Go deeper with source-backed research
Explore methodology, datasets, and related matrices cited on this page.