Ranked #30 of 46 · checked 2026-09-01
0xProcessing review
0xProcessing scores 5.8 of 10 on this index and ranks #30 of 46. It publishes no processing rate. It publishes no asset count. Verification is kyb only. It publishes 68% of the fields tracked here.
Built for high-volume and high-risk merchants, with rates negotiated rather than published.
- Score
- 5.8/10
- Processing from
- —
- Assets listed
- —
- Merchant verification
- KYB only
- Custody
- Custodial
- Discloses
- 68%
0xProcessing at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | No provider fee on withdrawal; network fee only |
| Assets listed | |
| Networks | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, BNB Chain, Dogecoin |
| Merchant verification | KYB only |
| Custody | Custodial, the provider holds funds before settlement |
| Jurisdiction | Not stated on the provider's public pages |
| Operating since | 2021 |
| Integrations | API |
A dash means the provider does not publish the figure, not that we did not look. Fee figures come from the provider's own pricing page.
What can 0xProcessing do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: igaming, forex, high-risk, ecommerce.
How does 0xProcessing score?
Weights| Criterion | Weight | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Assets, networks and geography How many assets and chains are live for merchants, and in which markets settlement actually works. | 25 | 6 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 5 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 6 |
| Integrations and API Maintained plugins, API surface, webhook reliability and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone. | 18 | 6 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 6 |
| Weighted total | 5.8 |
0xProcessing across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 5.8
Where it is strong
- Withdrawals carry no provider fee at all, only the network cost, stated in the public documentation.
- The network fee sits on the payer by default and can be moved to the merchant in settings, which is a documented choice rather than a fixed behaviour.
- No monthly fees and no turnover requirement, which is unusual among providers aimed at high-volume merchants.
Where it is weak
- The processing rate is not published anywhere and depends on business model and monthly turnover, so the relationship cannot be priced before contact.
- Reported enterprise rates in the 0.3% to 0.7% range come from the provider's own marketing rather than a tariff page.
On this page
The rate is negotiated, and that is stated#
Processing depends on business model and monthly turnover, and appears nowhere on the public pages. The provider is clear that this is how it works, which is more honest than a headline nobody actually gets.
Figures in the 0.3% to 0.7% band circulate and come from the provider's own marketing rather than a tariff page. This index does not treat marketing ranges as published rates, and a procurement review should not either.
Withdrawals carry no provider fee#
Only the network cost, stated in the public documentation. For a business withdrawing frequently, that removes the component that usually decides comparisons in this category, and it removes it verifiably.
Combined with no monthly fees and no turnover requirement, the published cost surface is unusually clean for a provider aimed at high-volume merchants. What is missing is the one number that matters most.
The network fee is a documented choice#
It sits on the payer by default and can be moved to the merchant in settings. Few competitors state their default either way, and fewer still describe it as configurable.
That matters more than it sounds for a business taking many small payments, where chain cost is a visible share of each one. Decide deliberately: pushing it onto the payer lowers your cost and raises abandonment.
White label and mass payouts#
Both documented, alongside invoicing. For a platform paying out to many recipients or reselling checkout under its own brand, that combination is the reason to be on this card rather than a cheaper one.
As everywhere in this category, the white-label tier carries no published price. The white-label list covers the six providers offering it and the questions worth asking about how it is charged.
Built for verticals banks decline#
Igaming, forex and high-risk appear alongside ecommerce on the public pages, and the network list adds Dogecoin to the usual Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron and BNB Chain base.
Acceptance is decided case by case and no provider here publishes a policy. Get a written yes for your jurisdiction and vertical before any integration work, because a declined application after a build costs the engineering time twice.
What is not published#
The processing rate, the conversion spread, an asset count, fiat settlement, recurring billing and point of sale. Six fields recorded as not disclosed, putting disclosure at 68%.
An API and nothing else among integrations means every storefront is a build. For a team with engineering capacity that is neutral; for a merchant without one it decides the matter.
Who should shortlist this#
A high-volume, high-risk merchant with developers, who is prepared to negotiate and wants white label or mass payouts. That combination is specific and this card serves it better than most.
A platform reselling processing under its own brand, for the same reasons, provided the sub-merchant questions are asked properly first.
Who should not#
A merchant who needs to know the price before committing. There is no version of this evaluation that does not begin with a sales conversation, and Speend publishes 0.5% for a comparable vertical range.
A store without engineering capacity, since no platform integrations are published at all.
How this card scores where it does#
Every criterion sits mid-field, which is the honest result for a provider that publishes its withdrawal terms and nothing about price. Cost scores on what is published rather than on what is rumoured, so the negotiated band does not lift it.
Coverage is held down by the absent asset count rather than by a known-narrow list, and that is a deliberate feature of the method: an unpublished figure cannot earn the score a published one would. Reweight it yourself if a quote in hand changes your view.
One thing to establish for your own case#
The rate, in writing, at your turnover and in your vertical. Everything else on this card is published and checkable; that one number is not, and without it no comparison against a published competitor means anything.
Ask for the conversion spread in the same email. It is the other unpublished component and it is usually the larger one for a business settling into bank currency.
How should you read this card?
The score of 5.8 comes from the five weighted criteria above, applied identically to every provider in the catalogue. If you weight the criteria differently, the methodology page re-ranks the whole index against your weights, and the order you get is as valid as this one.
The disclosure figure of 68% is a separate measurement and often the more useful one. It counts only the fields 0xProcessing publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. If you are already using 0xProcessing and looking to leave, the switching page covers the closest replacements.
What 0xProcessing does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-09-01. 0xProcessing does not publish the processing rate, what conversion costs, how many assets it supports, whether it settles to fiat, whether recurring billing is supported, whether it offers point of sale.
Ask for each of these in writing before signing. A provider that answers a factual question with positioning has told you something useful about the next two years.
0xProcessing compared
All comparisonsWhere else 0xProcessing appears
Questions about 0xProcessing
Is 0xProcessing legit?
0xProcessing has operated since 2021 and does not state a jurisdiction on its public pages. It publishes 68% of the fields this index tracks. Nothing here is a security assessment: run your own checks on custody and settlement before sending volume through any processor.
What does 0xProcessing charge?
0xProcessing does not publish a processing rate. The figure has to come from sales, which means it cannot be compared with published rates without asking.
Does 0xProcessing require KYC?
0xProcessing requires kyb only for merchants, per its published documentation.
What are the best 0xProcessing alternatives?
The three closest substitutes are Cryptomus, CoinsPaid, Speend. Which one fits depends on whether you are leaving over cost, coverage or onboarding.