Head to head · checked 2026-09-02
PassimPay vs Cryptomus
Two broad processors with deep plugin shelves and low published entry rates. Cryptomus starts at 0.4% across a hundred and twenty assets. PassimPay starts at 0.5%, publishes its 0.2% conversion fee as well, and caps any transaction at 3.5%. One publishes more of the bill; the other publishes a lower start.
How do PassimPay and Cryptomus differ?
WeightsScoring PassimPay against Cryptomus
| Criterion | Weight | PassimPay | Cryptomus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assets, networks and geography How many assets and chains are live for merchants, and in which markets settlement actually works. | 25 | 8 | 8 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 8 | 8 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 5 | 7 |
| Integrations and API Maintained plugins, API surface, webhook reliability and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone. | 18 | 8 | 7 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 5 | 6 |
| Weighted total | 7.0 | 7.4 |
Where the two diverge
Scored 0–10 · checked 2026-09-02
PassimPay Cryptomus
On this page
The rate you see is not the same kind of number#
Cryptomus publishes 0.4% and nothing about conversion. PassimPay publishes 0.5% processing and 0.2% conversion, which totals 0.7% for a merchant converting everything.
Compared honestly, then, the higher published number is the one you can actually add up. The lower one is a floor with an unknown component sitting behind it, and conversion is routinely the larger of the two components.
This is the whole argument of this pair. A merchant who settles in crypto and never converts should read the raw rates; one who converts should read the totals, and the totals point the other way.
A stated ceiling is unusual and worth something#
One side states that no transaction within a business account exceeds 3.5%. Nothing else in this index puts an upper bound in writing, and a bounded worst case is what a finance function needs to sign anything off.
The spread it bounds is wide. Seven times separates the floor from the ceiling and nothing published explains where a given merchant lands, so the planning figure should be the ceiling until a quotation says otherwise.
The other side publishes a floor with no ceiling at all. Whether that is better depends entirely on whether you believe the floor applies to you.
Seventy-four assets against a hundred and twenty#
Both lists are broad by the standards of this index and both cover every asset a normal checkout meets. The gap between them is the long tail, and the long tail matters only to businesses that meet it.
The network detail is closer than the counts suggest: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron and BNB Chain on both, with Litecoin, XRP, Dogecoin, Dash and Bitcoin Cash named on one side and Polygon and Solana on the other.
A merchant whose customers pay stablecoins on Tron will find both adequate. A marketplace meeting unpredictable holdings should compare the enumerated lists rather than the counts, since the counts include assets neither will let you enable.
Verification is stated on one side only#
One provider applies identity checks to all users and embeds business checks in onboarding, and says so plainly. The other publishes nothing about merchant verification at all.
The stated requirement is the more useful position even though it asks for more. A merchant knows before signing up that a verification file is coming and can plan the timeline around it.
Silence is not permission. The verification guide covers what a requirement usually looks like once it appears, which at an undocumented provider is often at a volume threshold rather than at signup.
The plugin shelves are the closest thing to a tie#
Eleven named integrations on one side, seven on the other, with WooCommerce, PrestaShop, Magento, OpenCart, Shopify and WHMCS common to both. Either will suit a shop owner who wanted to install something rather than build it.
The differences are regional. Bitrix, MODX, Tilda and Shop-Script point at Eastern European storefronts specifically, and if you run one of those the choice makes itself.
A listed plugin is an integration path, not integration quality. Install the one you need on staging and underpay an invoice deliberately before treating either shelf as an advantage.
Mass payouts on both, white label on one#
Both run bulk crypto payouts from the same account as acceptance, which for a platform paying affiliates or suppliers removes a second vendor relationship entirely.
Only one documents a white-label offering and, as everywhere in this category, does not price it. If branded checkout is a requirement rather than a preference, that narrows the pair to one immediately.
Recurring billing is likewise documented on one side and unstated on the other, which matters to a subscription business and to nobody else.
What to ask each of them#
To the 0.4% provider: the conversion spread. It is the single missing number and it decides the comparison, because 0.4% plus an unpublished spread can easily exceed 0.7% all in.
To the 0.5% provider: where in the band from 0.5% to 3.5% a business like yours actually lands, and what moves it. A range that wide is a pricing policy rather than a price.
To both: the withdrawal cost, which neither publishes. Getting money out is an operation every merchant performs eventually and it is the leg both leave unpriced.
Where this pair actually lands#
A business settling in crypto and never converting takes the lower published rate and should confirm the withdrawal cost before treating it as final.
A business converting to fiat takes the provider that publishes the conversion figure, because a computable 0.7% beats an uncomputable 0.4% for anyone who has to defend the number internally.
A platform needing branded checkout has one option here. A platform needing verification certainty before it builds has the other, and those two requirements happen to point at different cards.
Where the two scores come from#
Coverage and integrations score closely on both cards, which is why the totals sit near each other. The separation comes from cost, where one publishes two components and the other publishes one.
Onboarding scores identically and for opposite reasons: one states a requirement, the other states nothing, and the method rewards a published requirement over silence without treating the requirement itself as a virtue.
Move the cost weight up and the provider publishing its conversion figure pulls ahead. Move it down and the broader asset list wins. Both movements are a slider on the methodology page rather than an argument.
Read next
Questions merchants ask
Which one is actually cheaper?
For a merchant converting to fiat, PassimPay is computable at 0.7% while Cryptomus is 0.4% plus an unpublished spread. For a merchant settling in crypto, Cryptomus starts lower and the answer depends on withdrawal costs neither publishes.
Does either require identity verification?
PassimPay states that it applies identity checks to all users and business checks at onboarding. Cryptomus publishes nothing about merchant verification, which is not the same as requiring none.
Is PassimPay or Cryptomus cheaper?
Cryptomus publishes the lower processing rate, 0.4% against 0.5%. Processing is one of three cost components, though. Conversion is only partly published here, so the gap narrows once the whole chain is counted.
Can you run PassimPay and Cryptomus at once?
Yes, and during a migration you should: a billing cycle with both live tells you more about settlement timing and failure handling than any published page. Both name WooCommerce and PrestaShop among their integrations, so the two can sit side by side at the same checkout without a second build.