Cryptomus vs CoinGate

Two and a half times the rate, and you know what it buys#

Cryptomus publishes 0.4% and stops. CoinGate publishes 1% on processing, 1% again on manual conversions, and then keeps going: SEPA free, SWIFT at 0.50%, crypto withdrawals free, crypto payouts at fifty euro cents plus 0.5%.

A merchant converting everything pays roughly 2% at the second provider and can prove it. At the first the figure is 0.4% plus a spread nobody has published, and the spread is normally the larger term.

That is the honest shape of this comparison. It is not cheap against expensive so much as knowable against unknowable, and which of those two words matters depends on who signs off the number.

A hundred and twenty against ten#

This is where the wide catalogue earns its keep. Twelve times the asset count, across seven networks including Tron, BNB Chain, Polygon and Solana, against three networks and a published ten or more.

Ten is the narrowest general-purpose list in this index. For a Lithuanian shop selling to European customers who pay in bitcoin and a stablecoin, that costs nothing at all.

For a marketplace, a games publisher or anything meeting customers it has not met before, the gap is revenue. Nobody complains about a checkout they abandoned, so the loss never appears as a support ticket.

Seven plugins against five, and it is closer than that#

WooCommerce, Shopify, OpenCart, PrestaShop, Magento and WHMCS on one side; WooCommerce, PrestaShop, WHMCS, Wix and OpenCart on the other. Four platforms appear on both.

Shopify and Magento are the additions on one card, Wix on the other. If your storefront is one of those three, the decision is made for you without reading further.

Neither shelf is thin. This is one of the few pairs in this index where a shop owner can install something the same afternoon whichever way the choice goes.

Eleven years of trading against four#

A Lithuanian company operating since 2014 against a Canadian entity from 2022. Both name themselves, which is more than half this index manages.

Longevity is not scored and should not be, because a provider does not become better by surviving. It does tell a compliance reviewer something about how many regulatory cycles the business has already been through.

The newer card compensates with reach rather than history, and its scores reflect that: coverage and cost carry it, while the older card is carried by disclosure and integrations.

Eighty-nine percent disclosure is the outlier here#

The older provider publishes seventeen of the nineteen fields this index tracks, which is the highest figure across all thirty-five cards. Only point of sale and verification are withheld.

The newer one publishes seventy-four percent, itself well above the median, with conversion, payout, fiat settlement and point of sale left blank.

Those four blanks are not equally weighted. Conversion and payout are the two that decide what a year costs, and both are missing on exactly one side of this pair.

White label and subscriptions sit on both#

Both document branded checkout and both document recurring billing, and neither prices the branded tier. That is the category norm rather than a distinguishing feature.

Mass payouts and hosted invoicing are likewise common to both. On product surface these two cards are near-identical, which is unusual and useful, because it isolates the comparison down to cost, coverage and disclosure.

The one product gap is fiat settlement, documented on the older card and unpublished on the newer. For a European merchant needing euros in a bank account that is decisive.

Neither says what verification takes#

Both record merchant verification as undisclosed after checking. Two established companies, one inside the EU, and neither publishes what a merchant must submit before going live.

That is a failure across this whole category rather than a mark against either. It is also the question most likely to end a conversation, so it belongs in the first email rather than the fourth.

Ask what applies in your jurisdiction, in your vertical, at your expected volume. The verification guide sets out what the answer usually contains.

How the totals separate#

Coverage and cost carry the newer card to the higher total, both criteria weighted at twenty-five in the method. Integrations and support carry the older one and cannot make up the difference.

Cost scores well on both for different reasons: one for a low published number, the other for publishing nearly all of the components. The method rewards a checkable figure over a flattering one.

Drop coverage to a low weight, as a merchant with a stable customer base reasonably might, and these two cards swap places. That takes one slider on the methodology page.

What to ask each of them#

To the low-rate provider: the conversion spread and the withdrawal cost, in writing. Those two answers turn 0.4% into a real total, and until they arrive the headline is half a price.

To the full-disclosure provider: whether the ten-asset list has grown. It is the single line dragging an otherwise strong card and it is exactly the sort of thing that changes without an announcement.

To both: what happens when a customer underpays an invoice by the network fee. Handling differs and it is the most common support case in crypto checkout.

Where this pair actually lands#

A merchant selling worldwide to unpredictable customers takes the wide catalogue, pays a published 0.4%, and accepts that the real total will only be known after a conversation.

A European merchant with a finance function takes the published table, pays around 2% all in with free SEPA, and gets a number nobody will question.

A shop on Shopify or Magento has one option; a shop on Wix has the other. That is the fastest way to settle this pair and it beats reading the rest.