Ranked #32 of 46 · checked 2026-09-01
Triple-A review
Triple-A scores 5.8 of 10 on this index and ranks #32 of 46. Processing starts at a published 1%. It publishes no asset count. Verification is kyb and kyc. It publishes 68% of the fields tracked here.
Singapore-licensed, aimed at Asia-Pacific and MENA, settling local currency to merchants.
- Score
- 5.8/10
- Processing from
- 1%
- Assets listed
- —
- Merchant verification
- KYB and KYC
- Custody
- Custodial
- Discloses
- 68%
Triple-A at a glance
Provider site| Processing from | 1% |
|---|---|
| Conversion | |
| Payouts | |
| Assets listed | |
| Networks | Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tron |
| Merchant verification | KYB and KYC |
| Custody | Custodial, the provider holds funds before settlement |
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Operating since | 2018 |
| 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 Triple-A do?
Verticals the provider names publicly: ecommerce, saas, cross-border.
How does Triple-A 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 | 6 |
| 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 | 6 |
| Support and operations Reachable channels, published response commitments, and documented handling of underpayment and wrong-network sends. | 12 | 6 |
| Weighted total | 5.8 |
Triple-A across the five criteria
Scored 0–10 · weighted total 5.8
Where it is strong
- Licensed in Singapore, which is a clearer regulatory footing than most providers in this index publish at all.
- Merchants receive local currency while customers pay in crypto, so volatility never reaches the merchant balance sheet.
- Covers Asia-Pacific and MENA specifically, where several of the European and US providers here do not settle locally.
Where it is weak
- The 1% figure comes from secondary reporting rather than a published tariff page, and reported rates elsewhere range from 0.7% to 1.5%.
- Neither conversion nor payout cost is published, so the headline is a starting point rather than a total.
On this page
A named regulator, which is rare here#
A Singapore licence is a clearer regulatory footing than most providers in this index publish at all. For a business whose finance function asks who regulates a payments vendor, that is a complete answer where most cards offer none.
It does not tell you the provider is cheap or well run, and this index does not score it as though it did. It tells you there is a regime and somewhere to complain, which is more than the majority of this category offers.
The rate is reported, not published#
The 1% figure comes from secondary reporting rather than a tariff page, and reported rates elsewhere span 0.7% to 1.5%. This card prints the provenance rather than promoting the number to a fact, because the difference between a provider page and a report is exactly what a reader is here to learn.
That spread is wide enough to change any comparison built on it. Get your own rate in writing before treating this card as priced.
Local currency settlement is the product#
Customers pay in crypto and merchants receive local currency across Asia-Pacific and MENA, regions where several European and American providers indexed here do not settle locally at all. Volatility never reaches the merchant balance sheet.
For a business in Singapore, the Gulf or Southeast Asia, that is often not a preference but the difference between a provider that works and one that does not. Establish your banking country before reading anything else on this card.
What is not published#
Conversion cost, payout cost and an asset count. Three named networks — Bitcoin, Ethereum and Tron — is a floor rather than a list, and white label, recurring billing and point of sale are absent too.
So the headline is a starting point rather than a total, and the feature surface has to be established by asking. At 68% disclosure this sits mid-field, which is typical for the category and unhelpful for a merchant modelling monthly cost.
Verification is on the heavier side#
Business verification plus identity checks on individuals. That is the fuller requirement, and it follows from holding a licence: a regulated entity has diligence obligations that an unregulated one can decline to describe.
Plan the onboarding timeline accordingly rather than treating it as paperwork. The KYB guide covers what each side asks for and why the two are often confused.
Integration and platform coverage#
WooCommerce and an API. That is narrower than the plugin-heavy providers here, which name five or seven platforms, and adequate for a business integrating directly or running a WordPress store.
Mass payouts, fiat settlement and invoicing are all documented, which is a fuller operational surface than the published pricing suggests. If any of the three matters to you, this card answers it where several cheaper ones do not.
Who should shortlist this#
A merchant banking in Asia-Pacific or MENA who wants local currency arriving and a regulator named. Where that describes you, the alternatives are considerably thinner than the size of this index implies.
A business that needs a defensible cost figure in front of a procurement review should get the three unpublished numbers first, or compare against CoinGate, which publishes all of them and settles euro instead.
Who should not#
A merchant banking in the euro area, where the settlement advantage that makes this card distinctive does not apply and better-documented options exist.
A business whose customers hold unusual assets. No count is published and three networks is a short list, so coverage has to be confirmed by asking, and the answer may be narrower than the alternatives.
How this card scores where it does#
Nothing scores badly and nothing scores outstandingly, which reflects a provider that publishes a licence and withholds most numbers. Cost is held down by three unpublished components rather than by an expensive rate.
The licence itself is not a scored criterion, and for some readers it should outweigh several that are. The methodology page sets out what the five criteria measure and lets you reweight them; it cannot weight something it does not score.
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 Triple-A publishes itself, so it predicts how much of your evaluation will happen over email rather than from documentation. If you are already using Triple-A and looking to leave, the switching page covers the closest replacements.
What Triple-A does not disclose
Checked against the provider's own pages on 2026-09-01. Triple-A does not publish what conversion costs, what payouts cost, how many assets it supports, 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.
Triple-A compared
All comparisonsWhere else Triple-A appears
Questions about Triple-A
Is Triple-A legit?
Triple-A has operated since 2018 and is based in Singapore. 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 Triple-A charge?
The published processing rate starts at 1%, checked 2026-09-01. Conversion cost is not published, so this is a floor rather than an all-in figure.
Does Triple-A require KYC?
Triple-A requires kyb and kyc for merchants, per its published documentation.
What are the best Triple-A alternatives?
The three closest substitutes are CoinGate, B2BINPAY, Speend. Which one fits depends on whether you are leaving over cost, coverage or onboarding.