Ranked #28 of 46 · checked 2026-09-06
Coinify review
Coinify scores 6.0 of 10 on this index and ranks #28 of 46. Processing starts at a published 0%. It publishes no asset count. Verification is kyb only. It publishes 68% of the fields tracked here.
Danish processor since 2014 with no merchant processing fee on the Coinify-rate model and weekly fiat payouts above a stated minimum.
- Score
- 6.0/10
- Processing from
- 0%
- Assets listed
- —
- Merchant verification
- KYB only
- Custody
- Custodial
- Discloses
- 68%
Coinify at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | 0% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | Weekly on Wednesdays above 250 EUR or 0.01 BTC; 0.0001 BTC on Bitcoin payouts; bank wire fee on international transfers |
| Assets listed | |
| Networks | Bitcoin, Ethereum |
| Merchant verification | KYB only |
| Custody | Custodial, the provider holds funds before settlement |
| Jurisdiction | Denmark |
| Operating since | 2014 |
| Integrations | WooCommerce, Magento, PrestaShop, OpenCart |
A dash means the provider does not publish the figure, not that we did not look. Fee figures come from the provider's own pricing page.
What can Coinify do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: ecommerce, saas.
How does Coinify score?
Weights| Criterion | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Assets, networks and geography How many assets and chains are live for merchants, and in which markets settlement actually works. | 25 | 5 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 7 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 6 |
| Integrations and API Maintained plugins, API surface, webhook reliability and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone. | 18 | 6 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 6 |
| Weighted total | 6.0 |
Coinify across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 6.0
Where it is strong
- On the Coinify-rate model the merchant pays no sign-up and no processing fee: currency margin, processing and risk are priced into the amount the customer pays.
- A published payout cadence and minimum, weekly on Wednesdays above 250 EUR or 0.01 BTC, which is more precise than most of the index manages.
- A regulated European entity with a decade of operating history, which is the counterparty answer for merchants whose procurement asks who the company is.
Where it is weak
- On the market-rate model the margins and risk fees are deducted from settlement without a published percentage, so the cheaper-looking option for the customer has an unquantified cost to the merchant.
- The supported asset list is short and not summarised as a count, and international bank payouts carry a wire fee that is not stated as a number.
On this page
Two rates, and who pays the margin#
The help centre describes a choice the merchant makes once. On the Coinify rate, the customer pays a higher crypto amount that covers currency margin, processing and risk, and the merchant pays nothing. On the market rate, the customer pays the last market price and the same margins come out of what the merchant receives.
That is the whole fee model, and it is why this card records processing at zero and conversion as not disclosed. The zero is real on one setting; the deduction on the other is real and unquantified. A merchant choosing the market rate to improve conversion is choosing an unpublished cost, and should ask for the percentage before doing so.
What the payout page actually commits to#
Payouts are processed every Wednesday when the available balance exceeds 250 EUR or 0.01 BTC. Bitcoin payouts carry a 0.0001 BTC fee to cover network cost. International bank transfers carry a wire fee, and some payouts include a processing fee attributed to exchange rates and administration.
The cadence and the minimum are precise; the two fees at the end are not. For a merchant settling in euro inside the SEPA area the picture is close to complete. For one settling internationally, the wire fee is the number to ask for, and it is likely to be a fixed amount rather than a percentage.
The counterparty case#
The company has operated since 2014 from Denmark and describes itself as regulated. In a category where a large share of providers do not name a jurisdiction, that is a material difference for a merchant whose finance or legal team asks who the money is held with between payment and payout.
It also shapes the onboarding. Merchant sign-up is a documented KYB flow, and a regulated European processor will not skip it. The provider does not publish a timeline, which is the one gap in an otherwise clear process.
Coverage is the weak line#
The asset list is short and the networks named publicly are few. This is a processor built around Bitcoin acceptance settled in fiat, and a merchant whose customers pay in stablecoins on Tron will find the list does not reach them.
That is a fit question rather than a quality one. A European merchant taking occasional Bitcoin payments and wanting euro on Wednesdays is well served. A marketplace with an unpredictable asset mix is looking at a wider provider.
What is not published#
Mass payouts, white label, recurring billing and point of sale are not mentioned on the merchant pages checked, and each is recorded as not disclosed. Invoicing is covered by the payment button and hosted checkout products.
The conversion percentage on the market-rate model is the field that matters most and is absent. Everything else on the card follows from that one choice, so it is the first question to put in writing.
Who should not choose this#
A merchant with a wide asset mix or customers on cheap chains. The list does not reach them and no fee model compensates for a sale that cannot happen.
A business that wants to hold what it receives. The product is built to convert, and the payout minimum in Bitcoin exists for merchants who chose crypto settlement, not as an invitation to treasury management.
How this card scores where it does#
Cost scores reasonably: one model is fully published and free to the merchant, the other is unquantified. Onboarding is a documented KYB without a timeline. Integrations cover the main open-source carts. Support is scored on a real help centre with specific articles, which is better documentation than most of the index.
Coverage is the line that holds the card back, and it does so for a reason a merchant can check against their own order book in an hour. Reweight it on the methodology page if your customers pay in Bitcoin and nothing else.
Where Coinify sits in the index#
A regulated European Bitcoin processor with a clear payout schedule and a fee model that is free on one setting and unpublished on the other. Every figure above was read from the help-centre articles on 2026-09-06.
Read Coinify against BitPay for the closest comparison: two long-established processors built around fiat settlement, one publishing a percentage and one publishing a model.
How should you read this card?
The score of 6.0 comes from the five weighted criteria above, applied identically to every provider in the catalogue. If you weight the criteria differently, the methodology page re-ranks the whole index against your weights, and the order you get is as valid as this one.
The disclosure figure of 68% is a separate measurement and often the more useful one. It counts only the fields Coinify publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. Coinify has no switching page yet, because one publishes only once three suitable replacements clear the data threshold. The head to head comparisons are the closest thing until then.
What Coinify does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-09-06. Coinify does not publish what conversion costs, how many assets it supports, whether mass payouts are supported, whether white label is available, whether recurring billing is supported, whether it offers point of sale.
Ask for each of these in writing before signing. A provider that answers a factual question with positioning has told you something useful about the next two years.
Coinify compared
All comparisonsWhere else Coinify appears
Questions about Coinify
Is Coinify legit?
Coinify has operated since 2014 and is based in Denmark. It publishes 68% of the fields this index tracks. Nothing here is a security assessment: run your own checks on custody and settlement before sending volume through any processor.
What does Coinify charge?
The published processing rate starts at 0%, checked 2026-09-06. Conversion cost is not published, so this is a floor rather than an all-in figure.
Does Coinify require KYC?
Coinify requires kyb only for merchants, per its published documentation.
What are the best Coinify alternatives?
This index has not yet published a switching page for Coinify. The catalogue is ordered on the same weights and is the place to start.