BitPay vs Cryptomus

Five times the rate#

BitPay publishes 2% on processing. Cryptomus publishes 0.4%. Neither publishes a conversion spread or a payout cost, so the gap between the two headlines is the honest comparison available.

Two percent is the highest published processing rate in this index. That is not disqualifying on its own, and it does mean the rest of the card has to justify a large multiple.

What it buys is a fifteen-year record, a United States company, fiat settlement into a bank account, point of sale, and a verification process stated in advance.

Fifteen years against four#

Trading since 2011 makes this the longest-running card here. The other dates from 2022 and is registered in Canada, also named.

Longevity carries no weight in the scoring and it carries real weight in a procurement conversation, particularly with a bank deciding whether to keep an account open.

The younger provider answers on reach instead: twelve times the published assets and a quarter of the price.

Verification is stated on one side#

Business and personal verification is published as the requirement on the older card. The newer one publishes nothing about merchant verification at all.

For a regulated American business that requirement is unremarkable and predictable, which is the point of publishing it. A merchant can plan the timeline rather than discovering it.

For a business in a vertical that gets refused, the stated process is a wall you can see. The unstated one is a wall you find later, and later is worse.

Fiat settlement and point of sale exist on one card only#

Settlement into a bank account and in-person acceptance are documented on the older provider and unpublished on the newer. Both are recorded as checked absences rather than gaps in research.

For a retailer with a physical presence, that pair of features is the whole reason to look at this comparison, and it is available on one side.

For an online-only business converting nothing, neither feature is worth two percent, and the comparison collapses back onto the rate.

Fifteen assets against a hundred and twenty#

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dogecoin, XRP and Bitcoin Cash against Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, BNB Chain, Polygon, Solana and Litecoin.

The older list is proof-of-work heavy and includes XRP and Bitcoin Cash; the newer one is built around the networks carrying stablecoin volume, particularly Tron.

That difference reflects when each provider was designed more than what either can do. A merchant receiving Tether on Tron should note that only one of these two settles on that network.

Plugins exist on neither, effectively#

The older card names no ecommerce integrations at all. The newer one names six platforms plus an API.

Given the brand recognition on the older side, third-party connectors certainly exist, and this index does not count them. A plugin maintained by neither the platform nor the provider is a dependency with nobody accountable.

That leaves an API integration on one side and an install on the other, which for a small shop is the difference between a project and an afternoon.

Subscriptions and payouts sit on both#

Both document recurring billing, mass payouts and hosted invoicing. On product surface the older card is actually the broader of the two, adding fiat settlement and point of sale.

White label is unpublished on the older side and documented on the newer, which is the one product line running against the general pattern here.

A subscription business is served on both. A subscription business that also needs euros in a bank account is served on one.

How the scores land#

Cost is where this pair separates hardest: the highest published rate in the index against one of the lowest. That criterion carries twenty-five weight in the method and it does most of the work.

Onboarding separates them again, and the older card scores lower for publishing a requirement rather than for having one. The method reports what a merchant will actually face.

Support and integrations both favour the older provider, and at seventy-nine percent disclosure it publishes more of the tracked fields than the newer card's seventy-four.

What to ask each of them#

To the older provider: whether the 2% moves at volume, since a published rate that high usually has a ladder behind it, and what settlement currencies and timings are available.

To the newer one: the conversion spread, the withdrawal cost and what verification is applied at signup and at volume.

To both: whether the point-of-sale or plugin path you need actually exists today. One publishes a point of sale and no plugins; the other publishes plugins and no point of sale.

Where this pair actually lands#

A United States retailer with a counter, a bank account expecting dollars and a compliance officer takes the older card and pays two percent for a package nothing else here assembles.

An online merchant selling worldwide takes the newer card, pays a fifth as much, gets twelve times the assets, and arranges its own fiat conversion.

The middle case — an online store wanting fiat settlement cheaply — is served by neither, and belongs in the wider index rather than on this page.