Radom vs NOWPayments

The fixed fifty cents is the fork#

Radom charges half a percent plus fifty cents. NOWPayments charges a flat one percent with no fixed component.

The crossover sits near a hundred dollars. Above it the fixed-fee card is cheaper and the gap widens; below it the flat rate wins and keeps winning as the ticket shrinks.

On a ten dollar order the fixed-fee card takes 5.5% against one percent. That is not a rounding difference and no other line on this page reverses it.

Twelve assets against three hundred and fifty#

One publishes twelve or more cryptocurrencies across ten or more blockchains; the other publishes the longest asset list in this index across seven networks.

The shapes differ as much as the sizes. A short list on many chains is a stablecoin product; a long list on fewer chains is a consumer-checkout product.

For business-to-business invoicing the short list is correct and the long one is inventory nobody touches. For a marketplace meeting unpredictable holdings it is the other way round.

Both do subscriptions, and one does them as a product#

Recurring billing is documented on both cards, which is unusual: most of this index treats a subscription as a repeated one-off charge.

One treats it as a named product alongside mass payouts and itemised invoicing, which is a platform-shaped offering. The other lists it among a broad feature set aimed at merchants generally.

Ask both whether recurring means retries and dunning or only repeated charges. The word covers both arrangements and the difference is a month of engineering.

Fiat settlement exists on one side#

Settlement into bank currency is documented on the fixed-fee card and recorded as unpublished on the other, which is close to structural: a non-custodial system that never holds a balance does not push bank transfers on a schedule.

For a business whose accounting runs in dollars, that single line may end the comparison before the fee arithmetic starts.

For one content to hold stablecoins, it is a feature that will never be switched on and the fee shape decides everything.

Custody: unstated against stated#

The non-custodial position is published plainly on one card. The other leaves the custody model blank, which for a provider settling both crypto and fiat is the field a reader should want filled first.

That blank sits alongside a Cook Islands incorporation and fiat partners who are described but not named. Three unanswered questions in the same area.

The other card is quiet about its own jurisdiction too, so on corporate disclosure neither is comfortable. Only one of them at least settles the custody question.

Neither names a plugin#

A prebuilt hosted checkout and an API on one side; no named ecommerce integrations at all on the other. Both expect the merchant to have developers.

That is consistent with the audiences: platforms and marketplaces rather than shops. It also means a WooCommerce store gets nothing from either card.

The WordPress list covers the providers who have done that work, and neither of these appears on it.

Both do publish a hosted checkout or invoice product, so a merchant without engineers is not locked out entirely. It is a link on a page rather than a checkout inside a store, and the difference shows up in conversion.

What each publishes beyond the headline#

One publishes donations at one percent, on-ramp and off-ramp at one percent each, and states that instant payouts carry no additional fee. That is a fuller price list than most of this index offers.

The other publishes a single rate and nothing else, leaving conversion and payout blank.

Both sit at sixty-eight percent disclosure. Level on the measure, and the fuller price list is on the card with the weaker corporate answers.

How the totals separate#

Coverage carries the flat-rate card to one of the highest totals here, at nine against six. Onboarding and integrations also favour it, both criteria where an unstated verification process still scores above a Cook Islands entity with no custody statement.

Cost is the one criterion where the fixed-fee card scores higher, on the strength of a lower percentage and a broader public price list.

Reweighting coverage downward closes most of the gap, which is the honest reading for a business with a stable, known customer base.

What to ask each of them#

To the fixed-fee provider: which regulated institution holds merchant funds, what the custody model is, and what the conversion spread costs. Three questions, none answerable from the site.

To the flat-rate provider: the conversion spread and the payout cost, which are its two unpublished components, and whether any first-party plugin exists.

To both: whether subscription retries are handled by the provider or by your code, since that is the difference between a billing product and a payment endpoint.

Where this pair actually lands#

A platform invoicing above a hundred dollars that needs fiat settlement and subscriptions takes the fixed-fee card and saves real money as the ticket grows.

A marketplace with small, frequent, unpredictable payments takes the flat rate, keeps its own keys, and never has to explain a Cook Islands entity to anybody.

Compute your own average order value first. It settles this pair more cleanly than any other line, and it takes ten minutes.