Head to head · checked 2026-09-02
Bitnovo Pay vs Coinsnap
Two European gateways built for small shops that want euros in the bank. Bitnovo Pay publishes a rate from 0.95%, five plugins and three regulator registrations. Coinsnap publishes no rate at all, supports only Bitcoin and Lightning, and names more shop and form integrations than any commercial provider here.
How do Bitnovo Pay and Coinsnap differ?
Weights| Gateway | Score | From | Assets | Verification | Settles fiat | Discloses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bitnovo Pay | 6.3 | 0.95% | Not disclosed | Yes | 53% | |
| Coinsnap | 4.8 | — | 1 | Not disclosed | Yes | 53% |
Scoring Bitnovo Pay against Coinsnap
| Criterion | Weight | Bitnovo Pay | Coinsnap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assets, networks and geography How many assets and chains are live for merchants, and in which markets settlement actually works. | 25 | 5 | 3 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 8 | 4 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 6 | 5 |
| Integrations and API Maintained plugins, API surface, webhook reliability and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone. | 18 | 7 | 8 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 5 | 5 |
| Weighted total | 6.3 | 4.8 |
Where the two diverge
Scored 0–10 · checked 2026-09-02
Bitnovo Pay Coinsnap
On this page
A published floor against no figure at all#
Bitnovo Pay prices from 0.95%, framed against the two to three percent it quotes for card acceptance. Coinsnap publishes no transaction fee, no monthly fee and no plan table on any page we could reach.
A floor with the word from in front of it is incomplete. A blank is worse, and it is the recorded reason this pair is not decided on cost alone.
Neither publishes a conversion spread, and both convert on receipt, so on either card the euros that land in the bank cost something nobody has printed.
Five assets against one#
One names Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDC, Litecoin and XRP followed by a reference to other popular cryptocurrencies. The other publishes a count of one: Bitcoin, on-chain and over Lightning.
That single asset is a position rather than a gap. Supporting one thing well removes token contracts, stablecoin issuers and a dozen chains from the operational surface.
It also means a customer holding USDC cannot pay at all, and USDC is named explicitly on the other card. For an online store that is a straightforward loss.
Lightning is where the narrow card wins#
On-chain Bitcoin cannot economically settle a four euro payment; Lightning can, in seconds, for a negligible fee. Only one of these two supports it.
For a bakery, a bar or any counter selling cheap items, that reverses the asset comparison entirely. Five assets that cannot settle a small payment are worth less than one that can.
For an online store selling at twenty euros and upward, the on-chain economics work either way and the broader asset list matters more.
Eleven platforms against five, and eight form plugins on top#
WooCommerce, PrestaShop, Shopify, OpenCart and Magento on one side. WooCommerce, Shopify, Shopware, Gambio, PrestaShop, Magento, OpenCart, Drupal, Wix, JTL and Modified Shop on the other, plus WordPress add-ons for Contact Form 7, WPForms, Gravity Forms, GiveWP and more.
The form layer has no equivalent anywhere in this index. Taking bitcoin through a donation form or a membership signup is where small organisations get stuck and nobody else has built for it.
PrestaShop appears on both, which matters for Spanish and French storefronts where it is a staple that larger processors skip.
Euros arrive on both, differently arranged#
Both document settlement into a bank account, which is the property that makes either suitable for a shop rather than a treasury.
One converts everything inside its system and pays out euros; the other lets the merchant choose between euros to a bank and bitcoin to a wallet they hold.
That choice is why the custody field is blank on the second card rather than wrong. The answer genuinely depends on which mode you enable.
Regulators named against nobody named#
Three registrations with numbers on one card: the Bank of Spain under D687, France under PSAN E2023-102 and the Dutch central bank under R193399. The other names an operating company and no jurisdiction at all.
Publishing registration numbers rather than the word regulated is the strongest form of this disclosure, because a number can be checked.
For a shop taking small payments the exposure is one settlement cycle and the question is less pressing. It is still the field a bank asks about first.
Point of sale on both#
In-person acceptance through a phone or tablet is documented on both cards, which is unusual and confirms who each is for.
The Lightning-capable card has the stronger claim here, since a phone terminal taking on-chain-only Bitcoin is not a practical till.
For a shop with a counter and a website, both cards cover both channels, and the decision moves onto assets and cost.
Disclosure is level and low#
Both publish ten of the nineteen fields this index tracks, which is fifty-three percent and below the median. Different fields are missing on each.
One withholds the asset count, the conversion spread and the payout cost. The other withholds every cost figure there is, along with custody.
Level on the measure and unalike in substance: paying to find out a price is a different problem from paying to find out how many assets there are.
What to ask each of them#
To the priced card: the enumerated asset list, the conversion spread and what a merchant below the volume threshold actually pays. The last question is the whole pricing conversation.
To the unpriced card: the transaction fee, any monthly fee, and the cost of the euro conversion. Three figures, none of them public.
To both: how quickly euros reach the account and on what schedule, since that is what a small business actually plans around.
Where this pair actually lands#
A Spanish or French online store on PrestaShop or Shopify, whose customers hold USDC as well as bitcoin, takes the priced card and gets three regulator numbers with it.
A German or Austrian shop, a bar, or a donation-taking organisation takes the Lightning card, gets the deepest plugin shelf in this index, and asks what it costs before signing.
Anyone selling below about ten euros a transaction should take the Lightning card regardless of the rest, because the other one cannot settle those payments economically.
Read next
Questions merchants ask
Can Coinsnap accept stablecoins?
No. It supports Bitcoin only, on-chain and over Lightning. Bitnovo Pay names USDC among its five assets, so a customer paying in dollars-on-chain can only do so at one of these two.
Do both pay out in euros?
Yes, both document euro settlement to a bank account. Coinsnap additionally lets a merchant take payment straight to their own Bitcoin wallet instead, which is why its custody model is recorded as unstated.
Is Bitnovo Pay or Coinsnap cheaper?
Neither publishes enough for a like-for-like answer. Coinsnap states no processing rate at all, so this comparison has to happen over email.
Can you run Bitnovo Pay and Coinsnap at once?
Yes. Nothing stops a merchant holding both, and running them together is how you learn which one handles your awkward payments rather than your typical ones. Here it is worth doing deliberately, because only Coinsnap settles to a wallet you control, and running both shows you what that difference means on your own order flow.