Ranked #18 of 46 · checked 2026-08-31
CoinsPaid review
CoinsPaid scores 6.6 of 10 on this index and ranks #18 of 46. Processing starts at a published 0.5%. It publishes no asset count. Verification is not disclosed. It publishes 68% of the fields tracked here.
Built around iGaming volume, with fiat settlement and a SoftSwiss connector.
- Score
- 6.6/10
- Processing from
- 0.5%
- Assets listed
- —
- Merchant verification
- Not disclosed
- Custody
- Custodial
- Discloses
- 68%
CoinsPaid at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | 0.5% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | |
| Assets listed | |
| Networks | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, BNB Chain, Litecoin |
| Merchant verification | Not disclosed |
| Custody | Custodial, the provider holds funds before settlement |
| Jurisdiction | Estonia |
| Operating since | 2014 |
| Integrations | SoftSwiss, 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 CoinsPaid do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: igaming, forex, high-risk.
How does CoinsPaid 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 | 7 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 7 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 5 |
| Integrations and API Maintained plugins, API surface, webhook reliability and whether a developer can reach a test transaction from public docs alone. | 18 | 7 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 7 |
| Weighted total | 6.6 |
CoinsPaid across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 6.6
Where it is strong
- Deepest iGaming specialisation in this index, including a platform connector most competitors do not offer.
- Fiat settlement and mass payouts are both first-class flows rather than refund mechanisms.
- Accepts verticals that US-domiciled processors decline outright.
Where it is weak
- No public pricing page. Every figure here comes from secondary reporting and needs confirmation in writing.
- Fiat withdrawal costs are reported in the 1% to 3% range, which can exceed the processing fee itself.
On this page
Built around one vertical, and it shows#
A SoftSwiss connector is not something a general processor adds casually, and its presence tells you where this provider's engineering attention has gone. For an operator on that platform it removes weeks of integration work and an ongoing maintenance relationship that would otherwise be yours.
For anyone outside iGaming the specialisation is a cost rather than a feature. You are paying for underwriting tolerance and platform work you will not use, and the comparison collapses to terms that are not published. The catalogue has generalists that publish more.
No public pricing page, and what follows from that#
Every figure on this card comes from secondary reporting rather than from the provider, and the card says so. That is an unusual admission for a listing to make and it is the accurate one: the fee range recorded here has not been confirmed against anything the company published.
The consequence for a merchant is concrete. You cannot compare this provider against one that publishes a full table without first obtaining a written quote, and any comparison made before that is guesswork wearing a number. Send the same questions to both on the same day and compare the replies.
Where the fiat side earns the premium#
Fiat settlement and mass payouts are both documented as first-class flows rather than as extensions of a refund mechanism. An operator carrying fiat-denominated player balances needs exactly that combination, and providers that treat payouts as an afterthought fail at precisely the volume where it starts to matter.
Reported fiat withdrawal costs in the 1% to 3% range can exceed the processing fee itself, which is worth naming because it inverts where merchants normally look. Mass payouts covers what to test before committing volume.
What to get in writing#
The processing rate at your volume, the fiat withdrawal cost as a number, and the vertical position including whether it can change with notice. None of the three is public and all three decide the relationship.
Then the review question: what triggers an account review and what happens to balances during one. In a vertical where revenue concentrates through one provider, that answer matters more than any rate. The high risk page covers how to read what comes back.
How this card scores where it does#
Coverage and cost both score moderately, and both rest on secondary sources rather than on anything the provider published. That is recorded in the cons and it should temper how much weight the total carries here.
Onboarding scores lowest of the lines, on documented full verification for a vertical that attracts it. Support scores relatively well, which is consistent with a provider selling to operators who expect account management.
Who should not choose this#
Anyone outside iGaming and adjacent verticals. You would be paying for underwriting tolerance and platform integration you will not use, and giving up published pricing to get them.
Any business that needs to price the relationship before making contact. There is no public tariff page, and that is a structural feature of how this provider sells rather than an oversight.
The question that decides this card#
Whether you run on a platform this provider connects to. If yes, the integration saving is concrete and the specialisation is worth its opacity. If no, you are buying underwriting tolerance and giving up published pricing to get it.
That single answer settles more of the evaluation than any comparison of rates could, which is why it belongs first rather than last.
Ask it first, and let the answer decide whether the rest of the evaluation is worth running.
Where CoinsPaid sits in the index#
The short version of this card: iGaming specialisation and fiat settlement, with no public pricing. Every figure above was read off the provider's own pages on 2026-08-31, and the fields it declines to publish are recorded as such rather than left blank.
Weighting will not fix the underlying problem with this card, which is that its figures come from reporting rather than from the provider. Get a written quote first, then compare. The method covers why unverifiable figures are excluded from scoring elsewhere.
How should you read this card?
The score of 6.6 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 CoinsPaid publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. If you are already using CoinsPaid and looking to leave, the switching page covers the closest replacements.
What CoinsPaid does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-08-31. CoinsPaid does not publish what conversion costs, what payouts cost, how many assets it supports, whether recurring billing is supported, whether it offers invoicing.
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.
CoinsPaid compared
All comparisonsWhere else CoinsPaid appears
Questions about CoinsPaid
Is CoinsPaid legit?
CoinsPaid has operated since 2014 and is based in Estonia. 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 CoinsPaid charge?
The published processing rate starts at 0.5%, checked 2026-08-31. Conversion cost is not published, so this is a floor rather than an all-in figure.
Does CoinsPaid require KYC?
CoinsPaid does not publish its merchant verification requirements. That is a planning risk rather than an answer, and it is why this card scores as it does on onboarding.
What are the best CoinsPaid alternatives?
The three closest substitutes are Cryptomus, NOWPayments, CoinGate. Which one fits depends on whether you are leaving over cost, coverage or onboarding.