Лучшие альтернативы Radom в 2026 году

Fifty cents is the whole problem#

Half a percent plus a fixed fifty cents is the lowest published percentage of any custodial provider in this index and one of the most expensive arrangements available for small orders.

At five hundred dollars it works out at 0.6%. At ten dollars it is 5.5%. Every replacement here charges a pure percentage with no fixed component, which is the specific thing being fixed.

Where the company sits#

The operating entity is incorporated in the Cook Islands with a company number published, and fiat services run through licensed institutions that are described but not named. The custody model is not stated at all.

All three replacements improve on that. One names a Lithuanian company from 2014, one a Canadian entity from 2022, and one publishes at least a founding year and a non-custodial design.

What leaving costs you#

A price for almost everything: donations at one percent, on-ramp and off-ramp at one percent each, instant payouts stated as carrying no additional fee. Only the presale product is held for a sales conversation.

Also recurring billing as a first-class product rather than a repeated one-off charge. Two of the three replacements document subscriptions and neither treats them as the centre of the offering.

The three products under one contract#

Subscriptions, mass payouts and itemised invoicing from a single account is a genuinely useful combination for a platform, and it is not common in this index.

Check each replacement on all three axes rather than on the rate. Losing mass payouts to save twenty basis points means adding a second vendor, which costs more than the saving in every case.

Where each replacement lands#

CoinGate is the closest fit on product and the furthest on coverage: recurring billing, fiat settlement and the most completely published fee table here, against an asset list of ten or more.

Cryptomus keeps a low published rate with no fixed component, adds a hundred and twenty assets and seven plugins, and keeps recurring billing. It is the least disruptive of the three.

The API-only shape changes on two routes#

There are no named plugins here, only a hosted checkout and an API, which suits a platform that was going to write code regardless.

Two replacements bring seven and five maintained plugins respectively. If any part of the business runs on a storefront rather than in your own code, that is an upgrade rather than a lateral move.

Twelve assets on ten chains#

A narrow asset list on a wide set of networks is the shape of a provider built around stablecoins rather than coin variety, and for business-to-business flows that shape is correct.

Two replacements widen coverage substantially — a hundred and twenty and more than three hundred and fifty — and one narrows it. The narrowing route compensates with a complete fee table.

Custody is unstated here and answered elsewhere#

This card leaves the custody model blank, which for a provider settling both crypto and fiat is the field a reader should want filled first. Two replacements state theirs plainly.

One of them is non-custodial, which removes the counterparty question entirely and removes fiat settlement along with it. That is a bigger change than the rate and should be a decision rather than a consequence.

What to establish before switching#

Your own average order value, measured rather than estimated. Above about a hundred dollars the fixed fee stops mattering and this page may be unnecessary; below it the case for moving is arithmetic.

Then ask each replacement whether recurring billing includes retries and dunning or only repeated charges. The word subscription covers both and the difference is a month of engineering.

The case for staying#

If invoices are large, the fixed fifty cents is noise and the published percentage is the lowest available from any custodial provider in this index. At five hundred dollars a payment nothing here is cheaper.

The product breadth is also real. Subscriptions, payouts and invoicing under one contract is what a platform actually needs, and assembling it from two vendors elsewhere costs more than the difference in rate.

What a switch actually takes here#

Everything is API-driven, so the migration is code you control rather than a plugin somebody else maintains. That makes the technical side predictable and the timeline honest.

Subscriptions are the hard part. Existing recurring authorisations do not transfer between providers, so plan a re-authorisation campaign to customers rather than a silent cutover.