B2BINPAY vs Speend

A quarter of a percent against a half#

B2BINPAY publishes 0.25%, the lowest processing figure in this index. Speend publishes 0.5%, which is joint second.

Neither publishes a conversion spread, so both headlines are missing the same component. The difference is what each publishes about getting money out.

One states crypto outgoing at no charge, SEPA withdrawals at 0.50% plus five euros and SWIFT at 0.60% plus thirty-five. The other states network cost passed through without markup, which is the cleanest formulation of that promise anywhere here.

Bank rails against crypto rails#

The withdrawal disclosures point at different businesses. Publishing SEPA and SWIFT costs means merchants are taking money out into bank accounts; publishing network pass-through means they are taking it out in crypto.

That is the practical fork on this page. A business that settles into euros should read the bank line carefully, because half a percent plus five euros on every SEPA transfer is a fixed cost that punishes frequent withdrawals.

A business that holds what it receives will find the pass-through arrangement cheaper and simpler, and the SEPA schedule irrelevant.

Three hundred assets against an unpublished count#

One publishes three hundred, the second-longest list in this index, across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron and TON. The other publishes no count at all, naming Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron and BNB Chain.

TON is the unusual entry and it appears on very little else here. If your customers arrive through Telegram-native wallets, that is a line worth checking against your own traffic.

An unpublished count against a published three hundred is not a close comparison on coverage, and the scores reflect it.

Business verification on both, personal on neither#

Both publish KYB as the requirement: the company supplies incorporation documents and ownership details, and named individuals are not asked for personal identity checks.

That combination is rarer than it sounds and it is the reason this pair is comparable at all. Most of this index either publishes nothing or requires both.

It also means neither is a route for a merchant who wants to be live without paperwork. The verification guide covers what a KYB file usually contains.

The payer side splits them#

One provider is built around a split where the business passes verification and the customer opens no account and faces no check. That addresses the single largest cause of abandoned crypto checkouts.

The other publishes nothing comparable about the payer experience. For a business-to-business flow that is irrelevant; for a consumer checkout it is the difference between a completed sale and a bounce.

Establish which side of that line your traffic sits on before comparing rates, because it changes which twenty-five basis points actually matter.

One plugin against none#

WooCommerce and an API on one side, an API alone on the other. Neither shelf is deep and one of them is empty.

Both cards are clearly aimed at businesses with developers, which is consistent with the KYB requirement and the enterprise framing. A shop owner is not the intended reader of either.

If your storefront is WordPress, one of these can be installed and the other has to be built, and at these rates that difference is worth more than the fee gap.

Fiat settlement and subscriptions#

Fiat settlement is documented on the lower-rate card and recorded as unpublished on the other. Recurring billing runs the opposite way.

That is a clean split by use case: one is built to move money into bank accounts, the other to bill customers repeatedly in crypto.

Mass payouts are documented on the bank-oriented card and unpublished on the other, which reinforces the same division.

How the totals separate#

The broader card takes the highest total in this index, carried by coverage at nine, cost at nine and support at eight. The other sits mid-table at a respectable total with a stronger disclosure figure.

Seventy-four percent against sixty-three percent means the lower-rate provider publishes more of the fields this index tracks, even though its asset count is one of the blanks.

That is the trade in one line: a lower published rate with more of the surrounding detail, against a higher rate with far more coverage behind it.

What to ask each of them#

To the quarter-percent provider: the enumerated asset list, since no count is published and the whole coverage question rests on it, plus the conversion spread.

To the half-percent provider: the fiat settlement path, if you need one, and the conversion spread, both recorded as unpublished after checking.

To both: how long KYB takes in practice and which verticals are refused before the file is opened. Those two answers decide availability before price does.

Where this pair actually lands#

A business withdrawing into euros at moderate frequency takes the quarter-percent card and prices the SEPA schedule into its cadence rather than ignoring it.

A merchant meeting consumer payers across many assets takes the broader card, keeps the payer friction low, and settles in crypto.

Either way the KYB file is coming. Start it early, because at both providers it is the item on the critical path rather than the integration.