Head to head · checked 2026-09-02
Zaprite vs OpenNode
Bitcoin acceptance for two different businesses. OpenNode is a Bitcoin and Lightning gateway with fiat settlement and a published payout structure. Zaprite is an invoicing product charging $25 a month plus 1%, with transaction fees capped at $15 — which makes it the cheapest card in this index for large invoices.
How do Zaprite and OpenNode differ?
WeightsScoring Zaprite against OpenNode
| Criterion | Weight | Zaprite | OpenNode |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assets, networks and geography How many assets and chains are live for merchants, and in which markets settlement actually works. | 25 | 3 | 3 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 6 | 8 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 5 | 6 |
| Integrations and API Maintained plugins, API surface, webhook reliability and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone. | 18 | 5 | 7 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 5 | 7 |
| Weighted total | 4.8 | 6.1 |
Where the two diverge
Scored 0–10 · checked 2026-09-02
Zaprite OpenNode
On this page
A cap changes the arithmetic entirely#
Zaprite caps transaction fees at fifteen dollars regardless of payment size. OpenNode charges a percentage with no ceiling stated.
On a five thousand dollar invoice the cap works out at 0.3%, and at fifty thousand it is 0.03%. Nothing else in this index approaches that, and it is not a marginal advantage but an order of magnitude.
Below about fifteen hundred dollars the cap never binds and the comparison becomes a straight rate contest, which the subscription model loses because of the monthly fee sitting underneath it.
A subscription against a pure percentage#
Twenty-five dollars a month or two hundred and forty a year, against a provider that charges only when money moves. That fixed cost is unusual in this category and it is the first thing to model.
The included credit softens it considerably: twenty-five dollars of transaction fees a month, three hundred a year on the annual plan. A merchant billing under that ceiling pays the subscription and nothing else.
For a business taking one payment a quarter, the subscription is dead weight. For one invoicing weekly at four figures, it is the cheapest arrangement available anywhere on this site.
Which products carry a fee at all#
On the subscription card, payment requests, invoices, recurring invoices, payment links and the point of sale carry no transaction fee. The API and the WooCommerce plugin carry one percent, and event tickets one percent plus three dollars.
That inverts the usual arrangement. The manual, low-volume products are free and the automated, high-volume ones are charged, which is coherent and unlike anything else in this index.
The gateway card prices in the conventional direction and publishes its payout structure alongside: on-chain scheduled and Lightning on-demand free, on-chain on-demand at one percent.
Fiat settlement exists on one side only#
The gateway documents fiat settlement. The invoicing product does not state a settlement model at all, and does not state its custody model either.
For a business that prices in dollars and banks in dollars, that single line may end the comparison before the cap ever gets considered.
It is also the question to raise first with the invoicing product, because an accounts-receivable tool that leaves you holding bitcoin is a different product from one that does not.
Liquid and Tether against Bitcoin alone#
One card supports Bitcoin on-chain, Lightning and Liquid, plus Tether and dollar payments. The other is Bitcoin and Lightning with a published asset count of one.
Liquid support is genuinely rare and points at a Bitcoin-native audience. Tether support matters more commercially, because it means a customer who does not hold bitcoin can still pay.
The single-asset card is the purer product and the narrower one. Which of those two words applies depends entirely on who is paying you.
Invoicing against checkout#
Recurring invoices, payment requests and payment links are first-class on one card, with a single WooCommerce plugin behind them. The other is built around a hosted checkout and a point of sale with no named plugins at all.
That is the real distinction and the fee structures follow from it. One is an accounts-receivable tool that settles in bitcoin; the other is a payment gateway that happens to be Bitcoin-only.
A consultancy sending invoices and a coffee shop taking payments are not the same business, and these two cards know which one they are for.
What each leaves unanswered#
The invoicing product does not publish a custody model, a jurisdiction or a verification requirement. For a tool handling invoices, custody is the question a reader should want answered first.
The gateway publishes no processing rate at all, only a conversion figure of zero and a payout structure. The headline number is the one it does not show.
Both gaps are answerable by email and neither is answerable from the site, which puts one message ahead of any decision on this pair.
How the scores land#
Coverage scores low on both, which is what a scale built for general processors does to deliberately Bitcoin-shaped products. Neither number should be read as a criticism of fit.
Cost separates them modestly, and the separation understates the invoicing card for large invoices and overstates it for small ones. The method cannot express a fee cap, which is a real limitation on this particular pair.
Support and onboarding score close. Neither publishes a response commitment and neither publishes a verification requirement.
Where this pair actually lands#
A consultancy, agency or firm invoicing in the thousands takes the subscription card and pays less than anything else in this index, provided it can live without a documented custody answer.
A shop or a small business taking many small payments takes the gateway, gets fiat settlement, and never thinks about a monthly fee.
Run your own average invoice value against fifteen dollars before reading further. That one number decides this pair more cleanly than any other comparison on this site.
Reconciliation looks different on each#
An invoicing product writes the invoice, the payment and the customer into one record, which is most of a bookkeeping job done before the accountant sees it.
A gateway writes a payment and leaves the invoice wherever you already keep invoices, which is fine if that system exists and painful if it does not.
For a small firm without accounting software, the first shape saves more time each month than the fee difference costs. That is rarely visible when comparing rates and it is usually the larger number.
Read next
Questions merchants ask
When does Zaprite's fee cap start mattering?
Above roughly fifteen hundred dollars per payment, where one percent would exceed fifteen dollars. Below that the cap never binds and the monthly subscription makes Zaprite the more expensive option.
Which one settles to a bank account?
OpenNode documents fiat settlement. Zaprite does not state a settlement model on its public pages, which is the first thing to establish before choosing it for invoicing.
Is Zaprite or OpenNode cheaper?
Neither publishes enough for a like-for-like answer. OpenNode states no processing rate at all, so this comparison has to happen over email.
Can you run Zaprite and OpenNode at once?
Yes. Two gateways side by side for one month is the cheapest way to find out how each behaves on your own order flow, which no amount of documentation answers. Here it is worth doing deliberately, because only OpenNode settles to a wallet you control, and running both shows you what that difference means on your own order flow.