Sheepy vs CoinsPaid

One publishes a rate and one does not#

CoinsPaid publishes 0.5% on processing. Sheepy publishes no processing figure, no conversion figure and no withdrawal figure on any page, including the one dedicated to its gateway.

A page titled for the payment gateway that does not say what the gateway costs is a choice rather than an oversight, and it is the largest single gap on this pair.

Half a percent is competitive in this index and the unpublished side may well be cheaper. A merchant simply has no way to establish that before contact.

Both run acceptance and payouts together#

This is the property that makes the pair worth comparing. Incoming payments and bulk outgoing transfers run from the same balance on both cards, which for a marketplace removes an entire reconciliation problem.

Several providers in this index do one side well and treat the other as an afterthought. Doing both from one account is aimed at platforms paying affiliates, creators or suppliers out of revenue just received.

Check the payout side specifically rather than assuming parity. Bulk sending to many addresses and paying one supplier a month are different products under the same label.

Twenty assets against an unpublished count#

One names Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether on two networks, USDC, Litecoin, XRP and Dogecoin within a stated twenty or more. The other names Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, BNB Chain and Litecoin and publishes no count.

Naming Tether on both Tron and Ethereum is the more useful disclosure, because those two are not interchangeable to a payer and a wrong-network send is unrecoverable.

Neither list is broad by the standards of this index and both cover what a general checkout meets. Coverage is not where this pair separates.

Twelve years against seven#

One provider states 2014 and an Estonian base. The other states 2019 and no jurisdiction, company name or registration anywhere on its site.

Publishing a founding year without an operating entity is an unusual combination, and it is the field a compliance reviewer stops at first, long before the fee question arises.

That is recorded as a drawback rather than as an accusation. Plenty of legitimate businesses under-document themselves on a marketing site; the point is that a merchant cannot verify it.

Plugins against a vertical integration#

Shopify, WooCommerce, PrestaShop and WHMCS each get a developer guide on one card. The other names SoftSwiss and an API, which is not a plugin shelf but a very specific statement about its customer base.

SoftSwiss is igaming infrastructure, and its presence says where the demand for that provider originates more clearly than any marketing page could.

A general ecommerce platform is better served by the four documented guides. An igaming operator is better served by the integration that already exists in its own stack.

White label and point of sale sit on one card#

One documents a white-label offering and a point of sale; the other documents neither. As everywhere in this category, the white-label tier is not priced.

For a platform reselling checkout under its own name that narrows the pair immediately, whatever the other differences say.

The white-label list covers what the term usually means here, which is a branded hosted checkout rather than software you run.

Conversion is automatic on both and priced on neither#

Both convert incoming crypto to fiat and both document fiat settlement. Neither publishes what the conversion costs, which applies to one hundred percent of revenue on either card.

An unpublished spread on automatic conversion is the most expensive shape a fee gap can take, because it never appears on an invoice and cannot be avoided by changing behaviour.

The conversion guide covers measuring it from a live quote, which is the only way to compare these two on total cost.

Verification is unstated on both#

One references compliance tooling as a product feature and the other says nothing at all. Neither publishes what a merchant must submit or how long it takes.

For an igaming-adjacent provider that silence is more consequential, since the verticals it serves are exactly the ones most often refused elsewhere.

Ask what applies in your jurisdiction, in your vertical, at your expected volume. Those three variables move the answer more than any published policy would.

What to ask each of them#

To the younger platform: the processing rate, the conversion spread, the withdrawal cost and the contracting entity. Four questions, none answerable from the site, all of them decisive.

To the established one: whether 0.5% is a floor or a rate, and what the white-label tier adds to it. A published number that turns out to be an entry tier is worth less than it looks.

To both: whether bulk payouts run on the same balance as acceptance in real time, or on a settled balance with a delay. That difference decides how much working capital a platform has to hold.

Where this pair actually lands#

A marketplace on Shopify or WooCommerce that needs acceptance and payouts from one account, and can get a quotation, has a reasonable case for the younger platform on integration grounds alone.

An igaming or high-risk operator takes the established card, where the SoftSwiss integration and the twelve-year history are worth more than a plugin shelf.

A merchant who needs to model a cost before committing takes the published 0.5% and asks about the spread, because a card with no numbers at all cannot be modelled at any level of effort.