Лучшие альтернативы B2BINPAY в 2026 году

The floor rate is not the rate you get#

The 0.25% headline applies above five million a month. A merchant arriving at the entry tier pays 0.40% on coins and 0.50% on stablecoins and tokens, and since stablecoins carry most merchant volume, the higher figure is the realistic one.

That is still competitive against most of this index. The reason it belongs on a switching page is that merchants shortlist on the advertised number and budget against a figure they will not see for years.

The bank minimum is the harder constraint#

Five thousand on deposits and withdrawals rules the fiat rails out for smaller merchants entirely, regardless of how well the percentages compare. A business withdrawing two thousand a month cannot use the settlement side at all.

Establish whether that applies per transaction or per period before assuming it excludes you, and weigh it against alternatives with no minimum at all.

What no alternative here replaces#

The published table itself. Incoming rates tiered by volume and asset class, outgoing crypto at no charge, SEPA at 0.50% plus five euro, SWIFT at 0.60% plus thirty-five — that level of numeric disclosure exists nowhere else in this index.

Only CoinGate comes close, and it publishes fewer components across a much narrower asset list. If a defensible cost figure is why you are here, the alternatives are a step down on that axis.

Where each replacement fits#

CoinRemitter inverts the model entirely: nothing to accept, 0.23% on withdrawal, no identity check at registration and no minimum. For a small merchant that is a genuinely different cost shape.

Speend publishes 0.5% from the first transaction with no volume tier to reach, and removes the identity check from the payer as well.

CoinGate settles euro free over SEPA with no five thousand minimum, which for a European merchant withdrawing modest amounts is the specific fix.

Settlement speed is stated here and mostly not elsewhere#

Crypto settlement immediate, fiat T+1, both published rather than described. Of the alternatives, none states a comparable timing commitment on its public pages.

If your treasury depends on predictable settlement rather than on the rate, that is worth asking each alternative about explicitly before you move.

Coverage is the gap on this card#

No published asset count at all, and four named networks. That is a strange silence on the most numerically forthcoming provider in the index, and it means a merchant needing a specific token has to ask.

Two of the three alternatives publish a count. Whether that resolves anything depends on whether the specific assets you receive appear in the list, which a count never tells you.

What to check before moving#

Your actual monthly volume against the tier table. Merchants routinely discover they are closer to a better tier than they assumed, and the fix is a conversation rather than a migration.

Then price the alternatives on your withdrawal pattern rather than your revenue. The fees guide covers why a withdrawal-charged model beats a processing-charged one for some businesses and loses badly for others.

Outgoing crypto at no charge#

Stated plainly on the fee page, alongside the bank rails. For a business settling in crypto and withdrawing frequently, that removes the cost component that usually decides these comparisons, and it removes it in a way you can verify.

Of the alternatives, CoinRemitter charges 0.23% on withdrawal and Speend passes network cost through. Neither is bad; neither is zero. Price your own withdrawal pattern against all three.

The tiers reward growth, which cuts both ways#

A merchant growing into higher volume sees the rate fall automatically rather than through negotiation, which is unusual and genuinely valuable. A merchant whose volume is flat sits at the entry tier permanently.

Model the next two years rather than last month. If you are approaching a tier boundary, the arithmetic that sends you to this page may reverse itself without you doing anything.

Check the tier before assuming the arithmetic#

Merchants routinely sit closer to a better volume tier than they think, and a tier change is a conversation rather than a migration. Model the next two years rather than last month before concluding the rate is the problem.

What the table above cannot show you#

Which volume tier you land in, and therefore what you actually pay. The published floor belongs to merchants above five million a month and the entry tier is roughly double it.

Nor the asset list, which this card does not publish at all. Four named networks is a floor, and a merchant needing a specific token has to ask before comparing coverage with anything.

Keep the published table in view while you shop#

Every alternative publishes less than this card does, and it is easy to accept a verbal quote that sounds better than a number you can read. Ask for each replacement quote in writing, broken into the same components this provider prints.