Switching · checked 2026-09-02
Best DePay alternatives in 2026
Merchants replacing DePay land on one of three options. NOWPayments suits non-custodial at a flat 1%, publishing more than three hundred and fifty assets and no token requirement of any kind. Plisio fits non-custodial at 0.5% with five maintained plugins, covering Ethereum and Tron for stablecoin flows. Cryptomus covers for merchants willing to trade self-custody for a published 0.4%, seven integrations and a named operator. Figures come from each provider's own pricing pages, checked on the date shown above.
Quick verdict
NOWPaymentsNon-custodial at a flat 1%, publishing more than three hundred and fifty assets and no token requirement of any kind.
PlisioNon-custodial at 0.5% with five maintained plugins, covering Ethereum and Tron for stablecoin flows.
CryptomusFor merchants willing to trade self-custody for a published 0.4%, seven integrations and a named operator.
Why do merchants look for a DePay alternative?
No asset count is published, with support described only as thousands of tokens, so coverage cannot be planned around. Checked 2026-09-02 against the provider's own page.
The cheapest managed rate is unlocked by holding the provider's own token or NFT, which is a discount with a market position attached. Checked 2026-09-02 against the provider's own page.
DePay at a glance
| Processing from | 1.5% |
|---|---|
| Assets | Not published |
| Merchant verification | Not disclosed |
| Custody | Non custodial |
| Checked | 2026-09-02 against its own pricing page |
None of this is a recommendation to leave. It scores 6.2 against every other indexed provider on one set of weights, and whether that ordering matches your priorities is what the methodology page exists to let you test. The full card has the detail.
How do these alternatives compare?
Method| Gateway | Score | From | Assets | Verification | Settles fiat | Discloses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DePay | 6.2 | 1.5% | Not disclosed | 42% | ||
| NOWPayments | 8.0 | 1% | 350 | Not disclosed | 68% | |
| Plisio | 6.9 | 0.5% | 12 | Not disclosed | 68% | |
| Cryptomus | 7.4 | 0.4% | 120 | Not disclosed | 74% |
3 best alternatives to DePay
NOWPayments
Who it fits. Non-custodial at a flat 1%, publishing more than three hundred and fifty assets and no token requirement of any kind.
| Processing from | 1% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | Not published |
| Payouts | Not published |
| Assets | 350+ across Bitcoin, Ethereum, BNB Chain, Tron, Solana, Polygon, Litecoin |
| Verification | Not disclosed |
The full NOWPayments card has its strengths, its gaps and the fields it declines to publish.
Plisio
Who it fits. Non-custodial at 0.5% with five maintained plugins, covering Ethereum and Tron for stablecoin flows.
| Processing from | 0.5% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | Not published |
| Payouts | Not published |
| Assets | 12+ across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero, Dash, Zcash, Tron |
| Verification | Not disclosed |
The full Plisio card has its strengths, its gaps and the fields it declines to publish.
Cryptomus
Who it fits. For merchants willing to trade self-custody for a published 0.4%, seven integrations and a named operator.
| Processing from | 0.4% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | Not published |
| Payouts | Not published |
| Assets | 120+ across Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, BNB Chain, Polygon, Solana, Litecoin |
| Verification | Not disclosed |
The full Cryptomus card has its strengths, its gaps and the fields it declines to publish.
On this page
Thousands of tokens is not a number#
Support is described as thousands of tokens across hundreds of wallets, with no figure for either. For a router working against decentralised liquidity that is technically defensible and commercially unhelpful.
A merchant cannot plan around thousands, and the difference between a token that routes cleanly and one that routes at a punitive spread is invisible in that description. Two replacements publish an actual count.
The token-gated rate ladder#
Standard is 1.5% flat with no additional fees. The professional and enterprise tiers, down to as low as 0.5%, are unlocked by volume, by holding the provider's token, or by holding an NFT.
A rate available only to holders of an asset the provider issues carries its own risk, and it is not a rate a merchant can simply choose. Every replacement here publishes one price for everybody.
What leaving costs you#
Ten named blockchains including Base, Arbitrum, Optimism and Gnosis. Naming the layer twos individually rather than folding them into an Ethereum entry is scarce in this index and it is where cheap stablecoin payments actually happen.
No replacement here matches that. Two cover Ethereum and Tron and one covers seven networks, none of which includes a layer two. For a merchant whose payers hold on Base, that is the whole comparison.
The open-source tier has no equivalent#
A self-hosted tier at zero percent, with platform features explicitly excluded. Naming what the free version leaves out is more candid than most of this index manages.
None of the replacements offers a free tier of any kind. If you are running the open-source version today, leaving means paying a percentage for the first time on this integration.
Custody survives on two routes#
Payments arrive straight in a wallet you control, with no intermediary in the path. Two replacements keep that property exactly; the third holds funds until you withdraw.
That third route buys a published 0.4%, seven plugins and a named operating entity. Whether the trade is worth it is a question about your risk appetite rather than about your revenue.
Nothing here settles fiat, and nothing there does either#
This card records fiat settlement as unpublished, and the two non-custodial replacements have no fiat leg by design. A merchant on any of them receives crypto and converts separately.
Only the custodial route could plausibly change that, and it does not publish a settlement figure either. If bank currency is the goal, this page is not where it is found.
The plugin shelf is thin on both sides#
Shopify, WooCommerce and WordPress here; five maintained plugins at one replacement, seven at another and none at the third.
The widest-coverage option publishes no ecommerce integrations at all, which for a storefront is a step backwards dressed as an upgrade. Check your platform against the destination's own list rather than a directory.
Who you contract with#
Made in Switzerland, with no operating entity or registration named. One replacement names a Canadian entity from 2022; the other two name no jurisdiction at all.
For a non-custodial product that gap matters less, since no company holds merchant funds. It still leaves a compliance reviewer with a question the public pages will not answer at three of these four providers.
What actually breaks in a migration#
Layer-two support. A customer holding USDC on Base or Arbitrum cannot pay at any replacement on this page, and they will not tell you — the checkout simply does not complete.
Measure that before anything else. If a meaningful share of last year's payments arrived on a layer two, this page describes a downgrade rather than a switch.
The case for staying#
For a business selling to customers with browser wallets and stablecoins on cheap networks, this is the only card in this index built for that exact shape.
The pricing is also honest about its own ladder, which is rarer than a low headline. A flat 1.5% with no additional fees is a complete sentence, and several providers here cannot manage one.
What a switch actually takes here#
The wallet stays yours on two routes, so addresses and reconciliation carry over and the technical work is configuration rather than redesign.
The chain coverage is the hard part and it is not a technical problem. Warn payers on unsupported networks before the cutover, because a failed payment on an unsupported chain can be an unrecoverable send.
How to migrate from DePay
- Break last year's payments down by chain. Count what arrived on Base, Arbitrum, Optimism and Gnosis. No replacement on this page supports any of them, so that figure is the revenue at risk and it decides whether to move at all.
- Warn payers on unsupported networks. A customer sending on a chain the new provider does not support may lose the funds entirely. Publish the supported list on the checkout before the cutover rather than in a support article afterwards.
- Price the loss of the free tier. The self-hosted open-source option costs nothing and no replacement offers an equivalent. Model a year at 0.5% or 1% of revenue before treating a managed provider as an obvious simplification.
- Reuse the same receiving wallet. Two replacements are non-custodial and accept a wallet you already control. Keeping it preserves the addresses your accounting recognises and removes a reconciliation exercise from the switch entirely.
- Ask what a token-free rate looks like. The published ladder here depends on holding the provider's asset. Ask what the rate is without it, because that number is the honest baseline to compare every replacement against.
Questions merchants ask
Why do merchants leave DePay?
No asset count is published, with support described only as thousands of tokens, so coverage cannot be planned around. The cheapest managed rate is unlocked by holding the provider's own token or NFT, which is a discount with a market position attached. Both points were checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-09-02.
What is the closest alternative to DePay?
NOWPayments is the closest substitute for most merchants: Non-custodial at a flat 1%, publishing more than three hundred and fifty assets and no token requirement of any kind. It scores 8.0 against 6.2 on the same published weights.
Is switching crypto payment gateway difficult?
The code is easy. Discovering that the replacement handles underpayments differently is what costs you, which a parallel cycle prevents.
Will I lose payment history when I switch?
Yes, and avoidably. Rebuilding a year of settlements from block explorers costs far more than the export does.