Ranked #12 of 46 · checked 2026-08-31
Plisio review
Plisio scores 6.9 of 10 on this index and ranks #12 of 46. Processing starts at a published 0.5%. It lists 12+ assets. Verification is not disclosed. It publishes 68% of the fields tracked here.
Lowest published headline rate, with a white-label tier priced openly rather than on request.
- Score
- 6.9/10
- Processing from
- 0.5%
- Assets listed
- 12+
- Merchant verification
- Not disclosed
- Custody
- Non custodial
- Discloses
- 68%
Plisio at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | 0.5% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | |
| Assets listed | 12+ |
| Networks | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Monero, Dash, Zcash, Tron |
| Merchant verification | Not disclosed |
| Custody | Non custodial, settlement reaches a merchant wallet |
| Jurisdiction | Not stated on the provider's public pages |
| Operating since | 2018 |
| Integrations | WooCommerce, Magento, PrestaShop, OpenCart, WHMCS, 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 Plisio do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: ecommerce, saas.
How does Plisio 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 | 5 |
| All-in cost Processing percentage, conversion spread and payout cost taken together, not the headline number alone. | 25 | 9 |
| Onboarding and verification What a merchant must submit before going live, how long it takes, and which verticals are refused outright. | 20 | 7 |
| 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 | 6 |
| Weighted total | 6.9 |
Plisio across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 6.9
Where it is strong
- At 0.5% the gateway rate is the lowest published figure in this index.
- White label is a published 1.5% tier rather than an enterprise conversation, so it can be budgeted without a sales call.
- Supports privacy assets including Monero and Zcash, which most competitors decline.
Where it is weak
- Twelve assets is a narrow list for a merchant selling internationally.
- Neither conversion cost nor payout cost is published, so 0.5% is a floor rather than an all-in figure.
On this page
The lowest published rate, and what it excludes#
At 0.5% this is the lowest headline figure in the index, and it applies from the first transaction rather than at volume. That distinction matters more than the number: several competitors advertise less and start new merchants considerably higher, so the honest comparison puts this card ahead of rates that look better on a marketing page.
Neither conversion nor payout cost is published, which means 0.5% is a floor rather than a total. For a merchant settling in crypto that floor is close to the real figure. For one converting everything to bank currency, the distance between the two is unknown and could be several times the headline.
White label priced as a product#
A stated 1.5% for a branded checkout is unusual in a category where white label is normally an enterprise conversation with no published number. A business planning a branded payment flow can budget it here without a sales call, which changes what the planning stage looks like.
Whether 1.5% is good value depends on what you would otherwise build, and the comparison is not against another provider's white label tier so much as against the cost of not having one. For a platform reselling payments to its own merchants, that is usually a straightforward calculation.
Privacy assets, and why almost nobody else offers them#
Monero and Zcash appear on this card and on almost no other in the index. That is not a technical achievement so much as a commercial position: a provider converting to fiat has to explain incoming funds to its banking partners, and privacy assets make that conversation harder. Most of the category declines them for that reason alone.
For the small set of businesses that need those assets specifically, this single fact settles the evaluation and the other criteria become secondary. The Monero page covers why the supporting list is so short across the whole category.
Where the twelve-asset list runs out#
It covers Bitcoin, the major stablecoins and a handful of others, which serves a business with a predictable customer base and loses one without. Set against 350 or more at the widest provider here, this is a deliberate narrowing rather than an accident, and it is consistent with the low rate.
The practical test is the same as everywhere: ask a few customers what they hold. If the answers fit inside twelve assets, the coverage criterion should not move your decision at all.
Who should not choose this#
A merchant converting every payment to bank currency. The two unpublished components are precisely the ones conversion triggers, so the lowest headline rate in the index is least informative for the customer most attracted to it.
A business selling internationally into unpredictable markets. Twelve assets is a deliberate narrowing, and it fits a known customer base rather than an open one.
How this card scores where it does#
Cost carries the highest fee score in the index on the published 0.5%, since the method scores what a provider publishes rather than what it might quote. Coverage is the weakest line by a distance.
Onboarding scores moderately on the non-custodial design despite undisclosed verification, and integrations score on six named platforms. The total lands mid-table, which is the honest position for a card that is excellent on one axis and narrow on another.
One caveat worth repeating#
The rate is a floor rather than a total, and the distance to the total is unpublished. That caveat applies to most of this index and it applies with more force to the lowest headline figure in it.
Where Plisio sits in the index#
The short version of this card: the lowest published rate, applied from the first transaction. 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.
Reweight coverage down and this card climbs; reweight cost down and it falls. It is the most weight-sensitive entry in the index, which is a fair description of a provider that is exceptional on one axis and narrow on another. Try it.
How should you read this card?
The score of 6.9 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 Plisio publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. If you are already using Plisio and looking to leave, the switching page covers the closest replacements.
What Plisio does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-08-31. Plisio does not publish what conversion costs, what payouts cost, what merchant verification it requires, 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.
Plisio compared
All comparisonsWhere else Plisio appears
Questions about Plisio
Is Plisio legit?
Plisio has operated since 2018 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 Plisio 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 Plisio require KYC?
Plisio 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 Plisio alternatives?
The three closest substitutes are Cryptomus, NOWPayments, CoinGate. Which one fits depends on whether you are leaving over cost, coverage or onboarding.