Aurpay vs CoinRemitter

The charge lands at different moments#

Aurpay charges 0.8% when a payment arrives. CoinRemitter charges nothing then, and 0.23% plus network cost when funds leave.

That is a difference in timing rather than in rate, and it rewards opposite habits. A business accumulating and withdrawing monthly pays the withdrawal fee once on a large balance and comes out far ahead.

A business sweeping daily pays it repeatedly, and the gap against a flat acceptance fee closes faster than the headline numbers suggest. Model your own withdrawal pattern before treating either as the cheaper card.

Eight rails named exactly against thirteen assets#

One card lists USDT-ERC20, USDC-ERC20, DAI-ERC20, USDT-TRC20, USDC-TRC20, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Lightning and Ethereum. Spelling out the network for each stablecoin is something almost nothing else in this index bothers to do.

The other publishes thirteen assets across seven networks, adding BNB Chain, Dogecoin and Dash to the same core. A slightly longer list on more chains, described at the asset level rather than the rail level.

Precision matters here because a payer sending Tether on the wrong network loses it. A provider vague about chains cannot warn them, and that support ticket costs more than the fee difference.

Lightning appears on one side only#

Bitcoin Lightning sits alongside the stablecoin rails on one card, which is an unusual pairing. Providers here tend to be Bitcoin-native with Lightning or stablecoin-oriented without it.

The practical effect is that small payments work. A four dollar digital item is unviable on-chain and routine over Lightning, and the same integration handles a four hundred dollar order.

The other card has no Lightning and no layer twos, so its floor on payment size is whatever the cheapest network it supports charges that day.

Eight plugins against three integrations#

Shopify, WooCommerce, Ecwid, BigCommerce, PrestaShop, OpenCart, Easy Digital Downloads and Paid Memberships Pro on one side; WooCommerce, Magento and an API on the other.

For an eight-asset product that is an unusually generous shelf, and it points squarely at small merchants rather than at platforms.

The narrower side covers the two platforms that matter most by volume and leaves everything else to the API. Whether that is a limitation depends entirely on what your store runs on.

Signup is documented on one card and not the other#

One provider states that registration needs an email address and no identity verification, published on its own comparison table. That is a checkable claim and a rare one.

The other publishes nothing about merchant verification, referencing anti-money-laundering compliance and a money services registration without identifying either.

A stated absence of verification is worth more than an unstated one, because silence is a question rather than an answer. The verification guide covers what usually appears once it does.

Custody is answered on one side#

One card is custodial by design: it holds a balance until withdrawal, which is exactly what makes charging on withdrawal possible.

The other does not state a custody model at all, which for a provider converting and settling is the field a reader should want filled in first.

Ask directly whether any address in the payment path belongs to the provider and for how long funds can rest there. The custody guide covers why a short window is normally acceptable.

Neither publishes an operating entity#

Both record jurisdiction as not stated on the provider's public pages. Two businesses handling merchant money, neither naming a company or a registration number.

That is common in this segment and it is still the first thing a compliance reviewer stops at, well before the fee question comes up.

It is answerable by email at both, and worth asking before rather than after a balance has accumulated.

Fiat settlement is missing on both#

Neither card documents settlement into a bank account. A merchant on either side receives crypto and arranges conversion through a second relationship.

For a business already comfortable holding stablecoins that is no obstacle at all, and both cards are built around stablecoin flows rather than around euro payouts.

For a business whose accounting is denominated in bank currency, this pair is the wrong page and the fiat-settling providers elsewhere in the index are the place to start.

What to ask each of them#

To the withdrawal-fee provider: whether the 0.23% carries a minimum charge. A percentage with a floor behaves like a fixed fee on small withdrawals and would undo its main structural advantage.

To the acceptance-fee provider: the settlement path, the conversion cost and the contracting entity. All three are missing from the site and the first two decide whether 0.8% is the whole bill.

To both: what happens to an underpaid invoice, since handling differs across the category and this is the most common support case in crypto checkout.

Where this pair actually lands#

A small store on Shopify, BigCommerce or Ecwid that withdraws frequently and wants Lightning for small orders takes the flat 0.8% card and installs a plugin.

A merchant on WooCommerce or Magento who accumulates and withdraws monthly takes the free-acceptance card and pays a fraction of a percent for the privilege.

Anyone who needs to know who they are contracting with should press both hard before choosing, because on that question the two cards are equally silent.