OxaPay vs Plisio

Half a percent against one and a half#

Plisio publishes 0.5% on processing. OxaPay publishes 1.5% on merchant invoices, 1.5% on payment links, 2% on white label and 2% plus a fixed amount on static addresses.

Three times the rate is a large gap and the fee tables are not measuring the same thing. One is a single number covering the product; the other is six numbers covering six products, which is more useful and, at every line, more expensive.

The 0.4% floor advertised on the more expensive card is reachable by negotiation and is not what a new merchant pays. This comparison uses published sign-up rates on both sides, because a negotiated floor cannot be checked.

White label priced against white label unpriced#

Both document a branded checkout. One of them publishes 2% for it against 1.5% standard, which makes it the only card in this index where the branding premium is a number rather than a conversation.

The cheaper provider documents the feature and prices none of it, which is the category norm and the reason the white-label list exists mostly to record an absence.

A fifty basis point premium you can read beats an unknown premium you have to negotiate, even when the base rate is higher. Whether it beats it by enough is arithmetic on your own volume.

Custody is the structural difference#

One side is non-custodial: settlement reaches a wallet the merchant controls and no provider balance exists. The other holds funds, which is what makes its internal transfers, static addresses and payout products possible in the first place.

This is the line that cannot be renegotiated later. Everything else on this page is a rate or a feature and can be revisited at renewal.

The custodial design buys real functionality and the non-custodial one buys the removal of the failure you cannot recover from. The custody guide covers what each side actually costs.

Assets and networks are closer than the counts#

Twenty assets against twelve, which sounds decisive and is not. The network lists overlap on Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron and Litecoin, and diverge on the edges.

The custodial card adds BNB Chain, Polygon, Solana and TON. The non-custodial card adds Monero, Dash and Zcash, which is a privacy-asset position almost nothing else in this index takes.

If a customer base pays in Monero, one of these cards is the only realistic option here. If it pays in stablecoins on Solana, the other is.

Plugins favour one side clearly#

Five maintained platform integrations against two. WooCommerce, Magento, PrestaShop, OpenCart and WHMCS on one side; WooCommerce and WHMCS on the other.

WHMCS appearing on both is a signal about the shared customer base: hosting resellers and digital-services businesses, where billing lives in WHMCS rather than in a storefront.

For anyone outside that niche the wider shelf is a straightforward advantage, and it is one of the few lines on this page where the cheaper card is also the better one.

Onboarding claims run the other way#

The more expensive provider states that signup needs no documents and no delays. The cheaper one publishes nothing about merchant verification at all.

A published claim of no verification is checkable and a silence is not, which is why the onboarding scores separate the way they do rather than by any judgement about which policy is preferable.

Neither statement covers what happens at volume. Ask both what triggers a review after onboarding, because that is the version of the question that hurts.

Neither publishes a jurisdiction#

Both cards record the operating jurisdiction as not stated on the provider's public pages. For two businesses holding or routing merchant money, that is a shared and significant gap.

It matters more on the custodial side, where a balance sits with an entity whose supervisor is unknown. On the non-custodial side the exposure is one settlement rather than an accumulated balance.

If a compliance review is coming, neither of these is the card to bring to it. Several providers in this index name an entity and a registration number, and that answer exists elsewhere.

What to ask each of them#

To the custodial provider: the swap or conversion rate, which is missing while the product line clearly includes conversions, and which is the largest unknown on that card.

To the non-custodial provider: what the white-label tier costs, since it is documented and unpriced and the comparison turns on it if branding matters to you.

To both: the enumerated token list per network as of today. Counts and network names are not the same as the switches actually enabled on a live account.

Where this pair actually lands#

A shop that wants a low published rate, a real plugin and its funds in its own wallet takes the cheaper card, and gives up the priced white-label tier and four networks.

A reseller or platform that needs branded checkout with a knowable premium, mass payouts and a static-address product takes the more expensive card and pays three times the rate for it.

A merchant receiving privacy assets has one option here and a merchant receiving on Solana has the other, which is a cleaner test than the rate and worth applying first.