Ranked #20 of 46 · checked 2026-09-06
CryptoCloud review
CryptoCloud scores 6.4 of 10 on this index and ranks #20 of 46. Processing starts at a published 0.4%. It publishes no asset count. Verification is not disclosed. It publishes 58% of the fields tracked here.
Flat-fee gateway from 0.4% with free withdrawals, invoices in minutes, and plugins aimed at CIS and emerging-market merchants.
- Score
- 6.4/10
- Processing from
- 0.4%
- Assets listed
- —
- Merchant verification
- Not disclosed
- Custody
- Custodial
- Discloses
- 58%
CryptoCloud at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | 0.4% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | 0% on withdrawal of received funds; network fee only, withdrawals stated as within 30 minutes |
| Assets listed | |
| Networks | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, TON, BNB Chain, Litecoin |
| Merchant verification | Not disclosed |
| Custody | Custodial, the provider holds funds before settlement |
| Jurisdiction | Not stated on the provider's public pages |
| Operating since | |
| Integrations | WooCommerce, OpenCart, PrestaShop, WHMCS |
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 CryptoCloud do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: ecommerce, saas.
How does CryptoCloud 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 | 8 |
| 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 | 5 |
| Weighted total | 6.4 |
CryptoCloud across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 6.4
Where it is strong
- Withdrawal of received funds is stated as free, with only the network fee charged, and the pricing page carries no subscription or setup cost.
- The published rate starts at 0.4%, among the lowest custodial rates in the index, with a stated 30-minute withdrawal time.
- Plugins for WooCommerce, OpenCart, PrestaShop and WHMCS plus an API, which covers the hosting and small-shop segment the provider is built for.
Where it is weak
- The 0.4% is the lowest tier of a schedule whose standard rate is materially higher, and the pricing page does not make the conditions for the floor easy to find.
- Merchant verification requirements and the contracting entity are not stated on the public pages, and there is no fiat settlement.
On this page
What the floor rate is attached to#
The pricing page states fees from 0.4%, and third-party descriptions of the same schedule put the standard incoming-payment fee at a higher figure with the floor reached on volume. This card records the published floor, as it does for every provider, and flags in the cons that a new merchant should not plan on it.
Withdrawals are the clearer part of the schedule: 0% on moving received funds out, with the network fee only, and a stated time of within 30 minutes. For a crypto-settling merchant that makes the total cost the processing percentage and nothing else, which is a simpler picture than most of the index.
Who this is built for#
The plugin list tells the story: WooCommerce, OpenCart, PrestaShop and WHMCS, which is the toolkit of small shops and hosting resellers rather than of enterprises. Invoices can be created from the dashboard without an integration at all, and the product is positioned at merchants in markets where card acquiring is expensive or unavailable.
That segment is served well by a flat percentage and free withdrawals, because the alternative for those merchants is not a cheaper gateway but no gateway. A merchant in a market with easy card acquiring should compare on the same terms as any other custodial provider.
No fiat, by design#
Settlement is in crypto to the merchant's balance, then out to a wallet on withdrawal. There is no bank leg, which is why conversion is recorded as not disclosed rather than as a number: there is no conversion product whose cost could be published.
That keeps the fee schedule short and moves the conversion decision to the merchant. A business holding stablecoins loses nothing. One that needs local currency needs an exchange as well, and should price that leg before comparing this card with a fiat-settling provider.
What is not published#
Merchant verification is not described on the public pages. The contracting entity, its jurisdiction and the founding date are not stated. The asset list is presented as a list rather than a count, and the networks recorded here are the ones named across the site.
Mass payouts, white label, recurring billing and point of sale are not mentioned. For a provider whose appeal is low friction, the undocumented verification is the field to ask about first: an undocumented process is more often longer than lighter.
Who should not choose this#
A business that needs fiat settlement or a named regulated counterparty. Neither is on offer, and the rate does not compensate for a procurement process that cannot complete.
A merchant whose customers pay in assets outside the named networks. The list is adequate for stablecoins and the major chains and does not attempt breadth.
How this card scores where it does#
Cost scores well on the published floor and the free withdrawal, and loses a point for the unclear tier conditions. Integrations score on the plugin set that matches the target segment. Coverage is mid-field on named networks without an asset count.
Onboarding is marked down for the undocumented verification and the unstated entity, which together mean a merchant cannot plan a launch date from the public pages. Support is scored on ordinary documented channels.
Where CryptoCloud sits in the index#
A low published floor, free withdrawals and a plugin set for small shops, from a provider that says little about itself. Every figure above was read from the pricing and product pages on 2026-09-06.
The comparison worth reading is CryptoCloud against Cryptomus, which serves overlapping markets with a longer asset list and a named jurisdiction. Which of those two gaps matters is the whole decision.
How should you read this card?
The score of 6.4 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 58% is a separate measurement and often the more useful one. It counts only the fields CryptoCloud publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. CryptoCloud has no switching page yet, because one publishes only once three suitable replacements clear the data threshold. The head to head comparisons are the closest thing until then.
What CryptoCloud does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-09-06. CryptoCloud does not publish what conversion costs, how many assets it supports, what merchant verification it requires, founded, whether mass payouts are supported, whether white label is available, 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.
CryptoCloud compared
All comparisonsWhere else CryptoCloud appears
Questions about CryptoCloud
Is CryptoCloud legit?
CryptoCloud does not publish a founding date and does not state a jurisdiction on its public pages. It publishes 58% 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 CryptoCloud charge?
The published processing rate starts at 0.4%, checked 2026-09-06. Conversion cost is not published, so this is a floor rather than an all-in figure.
Does CryptoCloud require KYC?
CryptoCloud 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 CryptoCloud alternatives?
This index has not yet published a switching page for CryptoCloud. The catalogue is ordered on the same weights and is the place to start.