Plisio vs CoinPayments

Identical headline, opposite structure#

Both publish 0.5% on processing. Neither publishes a conversion spread or a payout cost, so on price alone this pair is a genuine tie with the same two gaps behind each number.

Everything that separates them is structural. Plisio never holds merchant funds; CoinPayments does, until you withdraw.

That is the line to settle first, because it is the only one on this page that cannot be revisited at renewal or negotiated at volume.

Thirteen years of trading against seven#

One of these is the oldest card in this index apart from BitPay, operating since 2013. The other dates from 2018. Neither publishes a jurisdiction.

A long record and no stated jurisdiction is an odd pairing, and it is worth noticing rather than explaining away. Thirteen years of continuity is real; an unnamed operating entity is a question a bank will ask.

The younger provider is equally quiet about where it sits, so on that specific axis this pair offers no choice at all.

Privacy assets appear on one side only#

Monero, Dash and Zcash sit on the non-custodial card alongside Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin and Tron. That is a position almost nothing else in this index takes, and providers usually decline privacy assets outright.

The custodial card names Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Tron and BNB Chain, and publishes no asset count at all, describing coverage without quantifying it.

If any part of your revenue arrives in Monero, this pair has one option and the rest of the page is academic.

Six plugins against none#

WooCommerce, Magento, PrestaShop, OpenCart, WHMCS and an API on one side. No named ecommerce integrations on the other.

For a shop that is decisive. A provider that has been running for thirteen years without publishing a plugin list is telling you where its attention goes, and it is not the storefront.

The API-only shape suits a platform with developers, and at 0.5% with a long track record that is a coherent offer. It is simply not an offer to a shop owner.

Custody changes what a failure costs#

A custodial provider that loses banking, freezes accounts or fails takes the balance with it, and no contract term reverses that in practice. A non-custodial provider failing costs an integration.

The custodial design buys real things in return: scheduled withdrawals, internal transfers, and the ability to act on a balance without a signature from you.

The custody guide sets out both sides. This pair is one of the clearest illustrations of the trade in this index, because the rate is identical and only the model differs.

Subscriptions and payouts#

Both document mass payouts. Recurring billing is documented on the custodial card and recorded as unpublished on the other.

For a subscription business that is a real separation, since a recurring charge against a balance the provider holds is mechanically simpler than one against a wallet you control.

White label runs the other way, documented on the non-custodial card and unpublished on the custodial one. Neither prices it, as usual in this category.

Both are quiet about verification#

Merchant verification is recorded as undisclosed on both cards after checking. Thirteen years and seven years of operation, and neither publishes what a merchant must submit.

The non-custodial provider structurally has less to verify, which is reflected in its onboarding score rather than in any published policy.

Ask both what triggers a review after onboarding. That is the version of the question that hurts, because the request arrives once you already depend on the integration.

How the totals separate#

The custodial card scores higher overall, carried by coverage and integrations despite naming no plugins, because its network breadth and API surface score well.

The non-custodial card takes the highest cost score of the two, rewarded by the method for a low published rate paired with a documented custody model.

Disclosure sits at fifty-eight and sixty-eight percent respectively, both mid-table. Neither is in the group that publishes nothing and neither approaches the top.

What to ask each of them#

To the older provider: the enumerated asset list and whether any first-party ecommerce plugin exists. Both are absent from public pages and both change the shape of an integration project.

To the newer one: whether any address in the payment path is controlled by the provider and for how long. Non-custodial is not a standardised term and the answer varies.

To both: the conversion spread and the withdrawal cost, which are the two components neither publishes and which decide whether 0.5% is the whole bill.

Where this pair actually lands#

A shop on WooCommerce, Magento or PrestaShop takes the non-custodial card, installs a plugin, keeps its own keys and pays the same 0.5%.

A platform with developers that wants a long operating record and recurring billing takes the older card and accepts a custodial balance in exchange.

A merchant receiving privacy assets has one option, and a merchant needing a maintained plugin has the same one. That combination makes this pair less balanced than the matching rate suggests.

Refunds behave differently under each model#

A custodial provider can usually issue a refund from your balance in one action. Without a balance, a refund is a payment you construct and sign yourself, at whatever the rate is that day.

That is workable and it needs a written process before the first refund rather than during it, including who holds the signing key and how the entry is recorded.

The price move between sale and refund lands on the merchant either way. The refunds guide covers why crypto refunds are outgoing payments rather than reversals.