About the Crypto Gateway Index

What is this index for?

Choosing a crypto payment gateway is unusually hard for a decision of its size. The category has perhaps forty serious providers, most of them publish a headline rate and very little else, and the comparison sites that exist are mostly funded by the providers they rank. A merchant trying to do this properly ends up sending the same eight questions to five companies and waiting a fortnight.

This index exists to remove most of that work. Every provider card carries the same nineteen fields, filled from the provider’s own pages, with the URL and the date recorded. Where a provider does not publish something, the card says so rather than leaving a blank, because a provider’s silence on conversion cost is itself one of the more useful things you can know about it.

What makes this different from the other listings?

Three rules, all of them checkable rather than promised.

The weights are published on the methodology page. Any ranking is a set of weights somebody chose, and most listings in this category do not tell you what theirs are. They live in the same file the catalogue reads from, and the page lets you change them and get a different order.

Nothing is invented. Every number on this site traces to a source we link. There are no fabricated reviews, no invented author personas, no screenshots of dashboards we never logged into, and no test results we did not run. Where we know something only from secondary reporting, the card says that too, under the rules in our editorial policy.

Thin pages do not publish. A comparison page needs both providers at 80% of their card fields resolved before it can exist. Pages that fail that check are logged during the build and never reach the site.

What this index is not

It is not a security assessment. Nothing here tells you whether a provider will still be solvent next year, and custody risk is the one thing you should investigate yourself rather than delegate to any catalogue.

It is not exhaustive. Providers appear once there is enough public documentation to fill a card honestly. A provider that publishes almost nothing cannot be covered well, and covering it badly would be worse than leaving it out.