Best 0xProcessing alternatives in 2026

Nothing about the price is public#

The processing rate depends on business model and monthly turnover and appears nowhere on the provider's pages. The relationship cannot be priced before contact, which is the recorded reason merchants look elsewhere.

Figures in the 0.3% to 0.7% band circulate and come from the provider's own marketing rather than a tariff page. This index does not treat those as equivalent to a published rate, and neither should a procurement review.

What the card does publish is worth keeping#

No provider fee on withdrawal at all, only the network cost, stated in the public documentation. No monthly fees and no turnover requirement, which is unusual for a provider aimed at high-volume merchants.

The network fee sits on the payer by default and can be moved to the merchant in settings. That is a documented choice rather than a fixed behaviour, and few competitors state it either way.

White label and mass payouts narrow the field#

Both are documented here, and for a platform paying out to many recipients or reselling checkout under its own brand they are the reason to be on this card at all.

Of the alternatives, Cryptomus and CoinsPaid both document white label and mass payouts; Speend documents neither. The white-label list covers the full set.

Where each replacement fits#

Cryptomus is the general processor that accepts high-risk verticals and publishes a fee page, at 0.4% with plugins for seven named platforms.

CoinsPaid goes deeper into igaming specifically, including a platform connector, and publishes no pricing page of its own — which trades one opacity for another.

Speend publishes 0.5% from the first transaction alongside high-risk coverage, and removes the identity check from the payer entirely.

Confirm vertical acceptance before anything else#

Every provider on this page decides high-risk acceptance case by case and none publishes a policy. A migration that ends in a declined application costs the engineering time twice over.

Get acceptance in writing for your jurisdiction and vertical first, then negotiate. The order matters more here than in any other family of pages on this site.

Custody and the banking question#

All four providers on this page are custodial, so switching relocates the counterparty risk rather than removing it. In verticals where provider banking is fragile, that risk is live rather than theoretical.

None of them publishes a jurisdiction either. The custody guide covers what to ask when the entity holding your revenue is not identifiable from public pages.

The negotiation is the evaluation#

With no published rate, there is nothing to compare until you have a quote, so treat obtaining one as step one rather than step three. Ask for the rate at your turnover, in your vertical, in writing.

Then put it beside the published rates of the alternatives in the same units. The fees guide covers doing that without letting the unpublished number flatter itself.

No monthly fees and no turnover requirement#

Unusual for a provider aimed at high-volume merchants, and worth naming because the enterprise end of this index is where volume floors and platform fees normally appear. BVNK requires half a million a month; this card requires nothing.

That makes it viable for a business that is high-risk without being high-volume, which is a combination most of the category serves badly.

Five networks including Dogecoin#

Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, BNB Chain and Dogecoin is a specific spread rather than a generic one, and the last of those matters for a narrow set of merchants and not at all for the rest.

No asset count is published, so a merchant needing a particular token has to ask. Of the alternatives, Cryptomus and Speend both publish counts, which is checkable in a way a silence is not.

Get the quote before anything else#

With no published rate there is nothing to compare, so obtaining one is step one rather than step three. Ask for it at your turnover and in your vertical, in writing, and treat marketing ranges as marketing.

What the table above cannot show you#

The rate, at this provider or in the negotiated part of the alternatives. Nothing about cost here is comparable until a quote exists, and marketing ranges are not quotes.

Nor whether any of them will accept your vertical in your jurisdiction. All four decide case by case and none publishes a policy, so that answer has to be obtained rather than inferred.

Negotiating from a weak position#

A merchant who has already built the integration negotiates worse than one who has not, and providers know which they are talking to. Get the number before the work rather than after it, and keep a published-rate alternative visibly on the table while you do.

Marketing ranges are not tariffs#

A band quoted in a provider's own promotional material is a statement about what it would like you to expect, not a commitment. Treat it the way you would treat a competitor quoting it about them: interesting, unverifiable, and no substitute for a written offer at your volume.