PassimPay vs Speend

Same rate, different second number#

PassimPay publishes 0.5% processing and 0.2% conversion. Speend publishes 0.5% processing and network cost passed through without markup on the way out.

Between them they cover the two components most of this index leaves blank, and neither covers both. One prices conversion; the other prices withdrawal.

A merchant converting to fiat can total the first at 0.7%. A merchant settling in crypto and withdrawing often can total the second at 0.5% plus chain cost. The right card depends on which of those you are.

A stated ceiling against a stated floor#

One card publishes an upper bound: no transaction within a business account exceeds 3.5%. Nothing else in this index puts a maximum in writing.

That is genuinely useful and the band it bounds is wide. Seven times separates the floor from the ceiling and nothing published explains where a merchant lands, so the ceiling is the planning figure until a quotation arrives.

The other publishes 0.5% with no ceiling and no band. Whether that is better depends on whether you believe the single number applies to you.

Seventy-four assets against three hundred#

Both lists are broad and one is four times the other. The network detail matters more than the counts: nine networks against four, with Bitcoin, Ethereum and Tron common to both.

The narrower network list includes TON, which appears on almost nothing else here and matters for merchants whose customers arrive through Telegram-native wallets.

The wider one adds BNB Chain, Litecoin, XRP, Dogecoin, Dash and Bitcoin Cash, which is long-tail coverage rather than new stablecoin rails.

The payer experience is the sharpest difference#

One provider documents a split where the business passes verification and the customer opens no account and faces no identity check. Across this index that is stated on one card only.

The other applies identity checks to all users and embeds business checks at onboarding, without publishing anything about what the payer meets at checkout.

For a consumer-facing store that difference outweighs the asset counts. Checkout abandonment is invisible in your reporting and expensive in your revenue.

Eleven plugins against one#

WooCommerce, PrestaShop, Magento, OpenCart, Joomla, Drupal, Bitrix, MODX, Shop-Script, Shopify and Tilda on one side. WooCommerce and an API on the other.

Eleven is the deepest commercial shelf in this index. Bitrix, MODX and Tilda point at Eastern European storefronts specifically, and if you run one the choice makes itself.

The single-plugin card is aimed at businesses that will write code, which fits its enterprise framing and leaves shop owners looking at the other.

Verification runs heavier on one side#

Business and personal identity checks on one card, business verification only on the other. Both publish their requirement, which puts this pair in the more forthcoming half of this index.

A KYB-only requirement is materially lighter for a company whose directors would rather not submit personal documents, and it is a common sticking point.

Neither publishes how long it takes or which verticals are refused. Ask both, because those two answers decide availability before any rate does.

What each leaves unpriced#

The withdrawal cost on one card and the conversion spread on the other. Each has exactly one significant blank, which is a better position than most of this index.

Those blanks are not equally sized for every merchant. A business converting everything cares about the spread; a business sweeping to cold storage weekly cares about withdrawal.

Work out which one describes you before comparing, because the card that looks more transparent depends entirely on that answer.

Corporate footing#

One names a Canadian operator at a published address with a FINTRAC money services registration number. The other publishes no jurisdiction and no founding year.

A registration number is checkable, which is the point of publishing one. It says nothing about product quality and it answers the first question a compliance reviewer asks.

For a business whose bank will look at the counterparty, that is a meaningful advantage on an otherwise closely matched pair.

How the totals separate#

Coverage and support carry one card to the top of this index; integrations and cost carry the other into the upper half. The gap is real and narrower than the totals suggest.

Disclosure sits at sixty-three percent on both, with different fields blank. Level on the measure and unalike in what they withhold.

Raise the integrations weight in the method and the eleven-plugin card closes most of the distance. That is one slider rather than an argument.

Where this pair actually lands#

A consumer store on Bitrix, Tilda, PrestaShop or Magento takes the eleven-plugin card and gets both halves of its bill in public.

A business selling to a broad international audience, where payer friction is the main leak, takes the other and gets three hundred assets and a checkout with no account creation.

A company whose directors will not submit personal documents has one option here, and that constraint settles the pair faster than any comparison of rates.

Both are quiet about the same thing#

Neither publishes a founding year and jurisdiction pair that would satisfy a procurement review outright. One names a Canadian operator with a registration and no founding year; the other names neither.

That is common across this index and it is worth noticing on a pair that otherwise discloses unusually well. Publishing two thirds of a fee table and none of your corporate history is a choice.

Ask each for the contracting entity in the agreement rather than on a website, since the website is not what a dispute will be settled against.