CoinsPaid vs CoinGate

Same vintage, different customers#

Both companies date from 2014 and both are named and based in the Baltic states. From there they diverge completely on who they sell to.

CoinsPaid names SoftSwiss among its integrations, which is igaming infrastructure and tells you where its demand originates more plainly than any marketing page.

CoinGate names WooCommerce, PrestaShop, WHMCS, Wix and OpenCart, which is a list of storefronts. Same category, different businesses.

Half a percent against one percent, plus one#

The igaming-oriented card publishes 0.5% and nothing about conversion or payout. The storefront-oriented card publishes 1% on processing, 1% on manual conversions, free SEPA, SWIFT at 0.50%, free crypto withdrawals and crypto payouts at fifty euro cents plus 0.5%.

A merchant converting everything pays roughly double the headline at the second provider and can compute it exactly. At the first, the headline is half and the total is unknown.

Which is cheaper depends entirely on the unpublished spread, and that number exists on precisely one side of this pair.

Vertical fit is the real decision#

An igaming operator will find the storefront provider's plugin shelf irrelevant and the SoftSwiss integration decisive. A European shop will find the reverse.

This is one of the few pairs in this index where the rate is close to noise. Being served by a provider that understands your vertical is worth more than fifty basis points in almost every case.

The igaming page covers what changes when the vertical is high-risk, including which questions to ask before a rate is even discussed.

One publishes an asset count and one does not#

Ten or more assets across Bitcoin, Ethereum and Litecoin on the storefront card. No published count at all on the other, which names Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, BNB Chain and Litecoin.

The unpublished count is the wider network list, including Tron, which carries most consumer stablecoin volume and is absent from the other side.

A published ten is a small number honestly stated. An unpublished list on five networks is probably larger and cannot be planned around, and this index scores it accordingly.

Both settle fiat and both do white label#

Fiat settlement, white label and mass payouts appear on both cards, which is more product overlap than the vertical difference suggests.

Neither prices the white-label tier, as nothing in this category does. The white-label list records that absence across eight providers.

Recurring billing splits them: documented on the storefront card, unpublished on the other. For a subscription business that is a straightforward answer.

Eighty-nine percent against sixty-eight#

The storefront provider publishes seventeen of the nineteen fields this index tracks, the highest disclosure figure across all thirty-five cards, withholding only point of sale and verification.

The other publishes thirteen, leaving asset count, invoicing, recurring billing, conversion and payout blank. Sixty-eight percent is mid-table rather than poor.

The five extra fields are not decoration. Conversion and payout in particular decide what a year costs, and one of these two cards lets you compute it.

Point of sale sits on one card#

In-person acceptance is documented on the igaming-oriented card and recorded as unpublished on the other, which is the reverse of what the two customer bases would suggest.

For a merchant with a counter that is a real line, and it is one of the few places where the narrower-disclosure card publishes something its rival does not.

Everywhere else the disclosure runs one way, which is why the totals sit closer than the rate difference implies.

Neither states its verification#

Both record merchant verification as undisclosed after checking. For a provider serving igaming that silence matters more, because those are precisely the verticals most often refused elsewhere.

An operator in a sensitive vertical should lead with that question rather than with the rate. It can close the conversation and it costs one email to find out.

The storefront card is equally quiet, which for European ecommerce is less consequential but no more informative.

What to ask each of them#

To the igaming provider: the enumerated asset list, the conversion spread, and whether recurring billing exists. Three fields absent from the card and each one shapes a different kind of business.

To the storefront provider: whether the ten-asset list has grown, since it is the single line dragging an otherwise exceptional card.

To both: what settlement timing looks like in practice and which bank rails are used, because that is where the published SEPA advantage either holds or evaporates.

Where this pair actually lands#

An igaming or high-risk operator takes the Estonian card. The SoftSwiss integration and the vertical experience are worth more than any rate difference on this page.

A European ecommerce business takes the Lithuanian card, pays roughly double, and gets a number it can defend along with five maintained plugins.

A merchant needing Tron settlement has one option here, and a merchant needing subscriptions has the other. Those two constraints settle most cases faster than the fee comparison.

What a Baltic base does and does not settle#

Both operators sit inside the European framework and both name themselves, which puts this pair well ahead of the unnamed entities that make up much of this index.

It does not follow that either will bank your vertical. A European licence describes what the provider may do, not which merchants it chooses to accept, and those are different questions with different answers.

Ask each one which entity signs the contract and which holds the balance. At a group with several companies those are frequently not the same, and the answer matters most exactly when you need it.