Ranked #1 of 46 · checked 2026-09-01
Speend review
Speend scores 8.3 of 10 on this index and ranks #1 of 46. Processing starts at a published 0.5%. It lists 300+ assets. Verification is kyb only. It publishes 63% of the fields tracked here.
Merchant-side model: the business passes KYB, the payer opens nothing and sees no identity check.
- Score
- 8.3/10
- Processing from
- 0.5%
- Assets listed
- 300+
- Merchant verification
- KYB only
- Custody
- Custodial
- Discloses
- 63%
Speend at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | 0.5% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | Network cost passed through without markup |
| Assets listed | 300+ |
| Networks | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron, TON |
| Merchant verification | KYB only |
| Custody | Custodial, the provider holds funds before settlement |
| Jurisdiction | Not stated on the provider's public pages |
| Operating since | |
| Integrations | WooCommerce, 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 Speend do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: ecommerce, igaming, forex, saas, high-risk.
How does Speend 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 | 9 |
| 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 | 8 |
| 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 | 8 |
| Weighted total | 8.3 |
Speend across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 8.3
Where it is strong
- Published rate starts at 0.5% for same-currency settlement, among the lowest entry rates in this index.
- The payer opens no account and faces no identity check, which removes the single largest cause of abandoned crypto checkouts.
- Network costs are passed through at blockchain cost rather than marked up, which several competitors do not state either way.
Where it is weak
- Conversion pricing is not published, and the 1% figure for automatic conversion comes from secondary reporting rather than from the provider's own page.
- Fiat settlement, mass payouts, white label and point of sale are all absent from the public pages, so the feature surface has to be established by asking.
On this page
The payer opens nothing, and that is the product#
The business passes business verification and the customer faces no account creation and no identity check. Across thirty-five indexed providers, this is the only card that states that split explicitly, and it addresses the single largest cause of abandoned crypto checkouts.
It is worth being clear about what that does not mean. The merchant is still verified, funds are still held by the provider, and none of the compliance obligations disappear. What disappears is the friction that sits between a willing customer and a completed payment, which is a narrower claim and a more useful one.
What the 0.5% actually covers#
Same-currency settlement, and nothing else. If you are paid in USDT and settle in USDT, that is the whole cost apart from network fees passed through at blockchain cost without markup.
If you convert, the rate is not published. A figure of 1% for automatic conversion circulates in secondary reporting, and this index does not print it as fact because the provider does not. Ask for it as a number before treating the headline as a total.
Three hundred assets, and what a count is worth#
A published count of around three hundred puts this among the broadest cards here, behind NOWPayments and well ahead of the general-purpose processors publishing ten or so. Networks named are Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron and TON.
TON is unusual: very few providers in this index name it, and for a business whose customers come through Telegram it may be the deciding line on the whole card. A count is a provider claim rather than a verified list, so ask for the enumeration on the chains you actually receive on.
The verticals most processors decline#
Igaming, forex and high-risk appear alongside ecommerce and SaaS on the public pages. Publishing a rate and then serving those verticals at it is the unusual part; providers that accept them usually treat the rate as a function of how uncomfortable the business makes them.
Acceptance remains case by case in every jurisdiction, and no provider in this index publishes a policy on that. Get a written yes for your specific case before scoping any integration work.
What the public pages leave blank#
Fiat settlement, mass payouts, white label, point of sale and invoicing are all absent, along with a founding year. That is six fields recorded as not disclosed, and the card scores 63% on disclosure as a result.
Absent from the pages is not the same as absent from the product. It does mean a merchant needing any of them starts with an email rather than a decision, and that a procurement review cannot verify the feature surface independently.
Recurring billing is here and rare#
Subscriptions are documented, which matters because a subscription business in a vertical banks decline has very few options anywhere. Of the thirty-five cards indexed here, a minority name recurring support at all.
No chain lets a merchant pull funds on a schedule, so every renewal needs a customer action regardless of provider. What a documented recurring feature gives you is the invoicing and reminder machinery around that, not a solution to it.
Who should shortlist this#
A merchant whose checkout abandonment is the problem, and who can settle in the currency they were paid in. Both halves matter: the first is what this card solves better than anything here, and the second is what makes the published rate the real rate.
A WooCommerce store in a high-risk vertical is the sharpest fit, since the plugin removes the integration work and the vertical coverage removes the usual rejection.
Who should not#
A business needing euro or dollars in a bank account on a schedule. Fiat settlement is not documented, and building a comparison around an undocumented feature is how merchants end up converting manually at month end.
A procurement review that requires a jurisdiction and a founding year. Neither is published, and for a custodial provider holding balances that is a fair thing to want. The methodology page covers why the index records the gap rather than filling it.
How should you read this card?
The score of 8.3 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 63% is a separate measurement and often the more useful one. It counts only the fields Speend publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. If you are already using Speend and looking to leave, the switching page covers the closest replacements.
What Speend does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-09-01. Speend does not publish what conversion costs, founded, whether mass payouts are supported, whether it settles to fiat, whether white label is available, whether it offers point of sale, 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.
Speend compared
All comparisonsWhere else Speend appears
Questions about Speend
Is Speend legit?
Speend does not publish a founding date and does not state a jurisdiction on its public pages. It publishes 63% 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 Speend charge?
The published processing rate starts at 0.5%, checked 2026-09-01. Conversion cost is not published, so this is a floor rather than an all-in figure.
Does Speend require KYC?
Speend requires kyb only for merchants, per its published documentation.
What are the best Speend alternatives?
The three closest substitutes are CoinGate, Cryptomus, B2BINPAY. Which one fits depends on whether you are leaving over cost, coverage or onboarding.