Crypto Gateway Index

25 providers · checked September 2026

Best crypto payment APIs

Speend leads this list at 8.3 of 10. NOWPayments follows at 8.0, then BTCPay Server at 7.7. Providers judged on the API surface, webhook handling and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone.

How this list was built

Ordered by the integrations criterion alone, which scores documented API quality rather than the overall weighted total.

The shortlist

Weights
Gateway Score From Assets Verification Settles fiat Discloses
Speend 8.3 0.5% 300 KYB only 63%
NOWPayments 8.0 1% 350 Not disclosed 68%
BTCPay Server 7.7 0% None stated No 74%
CoinPayments 7.4 0.5% Not disclosed 58%
Cryptomus 7.4 0.4% 120 Not disclosed 74%
Bitcart 7.1 0% 50 None stated No 84%
Crypto.com Pay 7.1 0% 20 KYB only Yes 84%
Binance Pay 7.0 0% 300 KYB only No 79%
PassimPay 7.0 0.5% 74 KYB and KYC 63%
Plisio 6.9 0.5% 12 Not disclosed 68%
CoinGate 6.7 1% 10 Not disclosed Yes 89%
B2BINPAY 6.6 0.25% KYB only Yes 74%
Bitnovo Pay 6.3 0.95% Not disclosed Yes 53%
DePay 6.2 1.5% Not disclosed 42%
OpenNode 6.1 1 Not disclosed Yes 68%
0xProcessing 5.8 KYB only 68%
Triple-A 5.8 1% KYB and KYC Yes 68%
Aurpay 5.7 0.8% 8 Not disclosed 47%
BitPay 5.6 2% 15 KYB and KYC Yes 79%
Speed 5.6 1% 3 Not disclosed No 74%
Alchemy Pay 5.3 1% KYB only Yes 63%
BVNK 5.0 4 KYB and KYC Yes 68%
Bitpace 4.8 75 Not disclosed Yes 47%
Coinsnap 4.8 1 Not disclosed Yes 53%
Sheepy 4.7 20 Not disclosed Yes 58%

Every provider on this list

Speend #1
8.3/ 10

Merchant-side model: the business passes KYB, the payer opens nothing and sees no identity check.

From 0.5% 300 assets KYB only
NOWPayments #2
8.0/ 10

Widest published asset list in the category, at a flat rate, non-custodial by default.

From 1% 350 assets Not disclosed
BTCPay Server #3
7.7/ 10

Self-hosted open-source processor that takes no fee and never holds the merchant's funds.

From 0% assets None stated
CoinPayments #4
7.4/ 10

Long-running processor split-priced between coins and tokens, with batch withdrawals.

From 0.5% assets Not disclosed
Cryptomus #5
7.4/ 10

Rate falls to 0.4% with volume, and the plugin range is unusually wide for a newer provider.

From 0.4% 120 assets Not disclosed
Bitcart #6
7.1/ 10

Open-source, self-hosted processor with no fees and no third party, covering 50+ assets including Monero and Lightning.

From 0% 50 assets None stated
Crypto.com Pay #7
7.1/ 10

No transaction fee and a 0.5% settlement fee, fiat payouts in USD, EUR and AUD, plugins for six platforms.

From 0% 20 assets KYB only
Binance Pay #8
7.0/ 10

Zero-fee closed-loop payments from Binance's user base, settled inside a Binance merchant account across 300+ assets.

From 0% 300 assets KYB only
PassimPay #9
7.0/ 10

Publishes both halves of the bill: 0.5% to process, 0.2% to convert, capped at 3.5% all in.

From 0.5% 74 assets KYB and KYC
Plisio #10
6.9/ 10

Lowest published headline rate, with a white-label tier priced openly rather than on request.

From 0.5% 12 assets Not disclosed
CoinGate #11
6.7/ 10

European processor with the most completely published fee table in the index.

From 1% 10 assets Not disclosed
B2BINPAY #12
6.6/ 10

Publishes a full tiered fee table including bank rails, which almost nobody in this category does.

From 0.25% assets KYB only
Bitnovo Pay #13
6.3/ 10

Spanish gateway priced from 0.95% that settles every payment into a euro bank account.

From 0.95% assets Not disclosed
DePay #14
6.2/ 10

Wallet-to-wallet payments across ten chains at 1.5%, or nothing at all if you host it yourself.

From 1.5% assets Not disclosed
OpenNode #15
6.1/ 10

Bitcoin and Lightning only, with free conversion and same-day fiat settlement.

From 1 assets Not disclosed
0xProcessing #16
5.8/ 10

Built for high-volume and high-risk merchants, with rates negotiated rather than published.

From assets KYB only
Triple-A #17
5.8/ 10

Singapore-licensed, aimed at Asia-Pacific and MENA, settling local currency to merchants.

From 1% assets KYB and KYC
Aurpay #18
5.7/ 10

Eight stablecoin-and-Bitcoin rails at 0.8%, with plugins for eight ecommerce platforms.

From 0.8% 8 assets Not disclosed
BitPay #19
5.6/ 10

The longest-running processor in the category, priced at the top of it.

From 2% 15 assets KYB and KYC
Speed #20
5.6/ 10

Lightning-first gateway for Bitcoin, USDT and USDC: no fee until 0.5 BTC of volume, 1% after, sub-second settlement.

From 1% 3 assets Not disclosed
Alchemy Pay #21
5.3/ 10

Fiat-crypto hybrid acquirer that converts at payment and settles merchants in local currency the next business day at a 1% fee.

From 1% assets KYB only
BVNK #22
5.0/ 10

Enterprise stablecoin rails with a published pricing policy that names every fee type and no amounts.

From 4 assets KYB and KYC
Bitpace #23
4.8/ 10

White-label processor with 75+ currencies settling into euros, sterling or dollars, and no published rate.

From 75 assets Not disclosed
Coinsnap #24
4.8/ 10

Bitcoin and Lightning only, with the longest list of shop plugins of any commercial card here.

From 1 assets Not disclosed
Sheepy #25
4.7/ 10

Automatic conversion to fiat and bulk crypto payouts from one account, with no rate published.

From 20 assets Not disclosed

Why this list ignores the overall score#

It sorts on the integrations criterion alone rather than the weighted total, because a developer evaluating an API does not care that a provider settles well or verifies quickly. The question is whether the documentation is good enough to reach a test transaction without talking to anybody.

That is a narrower question than the rest of this index answers, and using the total here would put providers at the top for reasons irrelevant to the person reading. The methodology page shows how the criterion is weighted everywhere else.

The three things that decide an integration#

Webhook reliability, idempotency and a usable test mode. Everything else about a payments API is either standard across the category or discoverable in an afternoon; these three determine whether the integration is finished in a week or drags for a month.

Webhooks matter most because they carry the state changes your order flow depends on, and a provider that retries badly will lose you payments in ways that surface as customer complaints rather than as errors. The webhooks guide sets out what to test before you trust one.

Test mode is not universal, and its absence is expensive#

Some providers here offer a sandbox that behaves like production; others expect you to send real value on a cheap network and watch what happens. The second approach works and it is slower, messier and impossible to run in continuous integration.

Establish which you are dealing with before you plan the work. The test-mode guide covers what a usable sandbox has to simulate, including underpayments and late confirmations, which are the two cases that break naive integrations in production.

The underpayment case nobody builds for first#

A customer sends slightly less than the invoice, because a wallet subtracted the network fee from the amount rather than adding it. Every provider handles this and they handle it differently: some settle the invoice partially, some hold it, some expire it and keep the funds pending manual action.

Decide what your order flow should do in that case before you write the handler, and check the provider actually supports that behaviour. The underpayment entry explains why it is so common, and it is the single most frequent source of support tickets in crypto checkout.

Quote lock windows differ more than rates do#

An invoice fixes an exchange rate for a window, and when the window expires the customer either pays a new rate or the payment fails. Windows here range from a few minutes to considerably longer, and the length is a genuine product decision rather than a technical constraint.

A short window pushes exchange risk onto the customer and produces failed payments. A long one pushes it onto the provider, who prices it into the spread. The quote-lock entry covers the trade, and the volatility guide covers what it costs you either way.

API-only providers and what that implies#

B2BINPAY, BVNK, 0xProcessing and Triple-A name an API and little else among their integrations. For a developer that is neutral information; for the business asking how long the work takes it means every surface is a build.

At the other end, providers with maintained plugins have usually invested in the API those plugins call, and a plugin you can read is documentation the vendor cannot quietly contradict. That is worth something even to a team that will never install it.

What the documentation should let you do unaided#

Create an invoice, receive a webhook, verify its signature, and query the payment state to reconcile against it. If all four are reachable from public documentation without a sales conversation, the provider has done its job and the rest of the integration is arithmetic.

Signature verification is the one most often left vague, and it is the one that matters for security. A webhook endpoint that acts on unverified payloads is a way to be paid by anyone who guesses the URL, and the fix belongs in the first version rather than the second.

Before you commit engineering time#

Read the error catalogue rather than the quickstart. A quickstart shows the path where everything works, which is the path you will spend the least time on; the errors show how the provider expects you to handle the rest, and their absence is a warning.

Then run the integration checklist against your shortlist. It is a shorter list than a payments integration deserves and it catches the failures that are expensive to discover after launch.

Read the error catalogue, not the quickstart#

A quickstart shows the path where everything works, which is the path you will spend the least time on. The error documentation shows how the provider expects you to handle the rest.

Its absence is a finding. A payments API without a documented failure surface will cost you the difference in support tickets.

Signature verification belongs in version one#

A webhook endpoint that acts on unverified payloads is a way to be paid by anyone who guesses the URL. Every provider here signs its callbacks and the verification step is a few lines.

It is the item most often deferred and the one with the worst failure mode. Write it before the happy path works, not after.

What separates the top of this list?

Speend scores 8.3 because published rate starts at 0.5% for same-currency settlement, among the lowest entry rates in this index. Its weakest point is the opposite side of the same coin: conversion pricing is not published, and the 1% figure for automatic conversion comes from secondary reporting rather than from the provider's own page.

NOWPayments sits at 8.0. The published asset list is the longest of any provider in this index, at 350+ currencies. Where it gives ground is that conversion and payout costs are not published, so the all-in figure cannot be computed from public pages.

A gap of less than half a point between two providers is inside the noise of any scoring method, this one included. When two entries are that close, decide on the constraint that disqualifies one of them rather than on the total.

What should you check before choosing from this list?

Whether the assets your customers actually hold are live for merchants in your country. Every provider here publishes a global list that is longer than the list available to you specifically, and none of them makes that gap easy to find. 13 of 25 providers on this list publish nothing about merchant verification, so plan onboarding time you cannot currently estimate.

Where should you read next?

Questions merchants ask

Which is the best crypto payment apis?

Speend leads this list at 8.3 of 10 on the published weights. Merchant-side model: the business passes KYB, the payer opens nothing and sees no identity check. The order changes if you weight the criteria differently, which the methodology page lets you do.

How were these providers selected?

Ordered by the integrations criterion alone, which scores documented API quality rather than the overall weighted total.

What do these providers cost?

Published processing rates on this list run from 0% to 2%, checked August 2026. Conversion cost is the larger variable and 20 of 25 providers here do not publish it.

Is this list paid for?

No provider pays to appear, to rank, or to be described in a particular way. Order comes from the weights on the methodology page applied to the scores on each card. Commercial relationships are described on the disclosure page.

Last checked 9 days ago