Speend vs CoinsPaid

One publishes, the other does not#

Speend publishes an entry rate of 0.5%, an asset count of 300 or more, and the fact that its verification applies to the merchant rather than the payer. CoinsPaid publishes no tariff page, and every figure on its card here comes from secondary reporting.

That is a process difference as much as a commercial one. A provider that expects the price conversation to happen entirely in private will expect the same of the conversations that follow it.

What the specialist brings#

A platform connector, which for an operator on the right platform removes weeks of integration and an ongoing maintenance relationship. And fiat settlement paired with payouts, which is what an operator carrying fiat-denominated player balances actually needs.

Neither of those appears in a rate comparison, and for a large operator both can outweigh a published percentage.

What the generalist brings#

A rate you can budget against, a wider asset list, and an explicit statement that the payer opens no account. For an operator whose players are the customers, that last point is a conversion argument rather than a compliance one.

Speend also names iGaming, forex and high-risk among the verticals it serves, so this is not a generalist tolerating the vertical case by case.

Reading this pair by business type#

A large operator on a platform CoinsPaid connects to takes CoinsPaid, and the integration saving is the payment. A large operator not on that platform is choosing between an unpriceable specialist and a priceable one, which is a weaker case for the former.

A smaller operator takes Speend, because at low volume the ability to plan a cost matters more than underwriting depth, and the vertical is named rather than tolerated.

Any operator should ask both what would change their vertical position and with how much notice, since that is the risk that dwarfs any rate difference.

What to send both of them#

To CoinsPaid: a written rate, the fiat withdrawal cost as a number, and the vertical position. None of the three is public.

To Speend: the converting rate, since the published figure covers same-currency settlement, and confirmation that the vertical applies to your specific activity.

To both: what triggers an account review and what happens to balances during one. In a vertical where revenue concentrates through one provider, that answer is worth more than the rate.

What this comparison leaves open#

Payout behaviour at realistic scale, which neither documents. Ask both to describe a batch of several hundred recipients: whether it is atomic, what a malformed address does to the rest, and how failures are reported. Mass payouts covers why those answers separate a real product from a refund endpoint.

Both are custodial and neither publishes review behaviour, which for an operator is the pair of facts most worth establishing before volume arrives.

One publishes a rate, the other publishes nothing#

Speend states 0.5% for same-currency settlement on its own pages. CoinsPaid has no public pricing page at all, so every figure has to be confirmed in writing during onboarding.

That asymmetry shapes the whole evaluation: one relationship can be priced this afternoon and the other cannot begin without a sales conversation. Whichever turns out cheaper, the sequencing cost is real and lands entirely on one side.

The withdrawal cost may exceed the processing cost#

Reported fiat withdrawal at CoinsPaid falls in the 1% to 3% range, which can be larger than the processing fee itself. Speend passes network cost through without markup and does not document fiat settlement at all.

So neither card lets you compute a total, and they fail to do so in opposite directions. Ask CoinsPaid for the withdrawal figure and Speend for the conversion spread, and only then compare.

Specialisation against generality#

CoinsPaid documents a SoftSwiss connector, point of sale, white label, mass payouts and fiat settlement. That is a deeper feature surface aimed squarely at igaming operators.

Speend documents recurring billing and a WooCommerce plugin, and leaves mass payouts, point of sale and fiat settlement absent from its pages. For an operator on a gaming platform the first card is doing work the second does not attempt.

Reading this pair by business type#

A gaming operator on SoftSwiss takes CoinsPaid, and the pricing opacity is the cost of the integration being already built.

A subscription business in a vertical banks decline takes Speend, which is one of very few cards here documenting recurring billing alongside high-risk coverage.

A merchant who simply needs to know the price before committing takes Speend, because the other card cannot answer that question without onboarding first.

What to send both of them#

To CoinsPaid: processing, conversion and fiat withdrawal as three numbers for your volume and vertical, in writing, before any integration work.

To Speend: the conversion spread, and whether fiat settlement and mass payouts exist in any form. Both are absent from the pages rather than necessarily from the product.

Both are custodial, and neither names a jurisdiction#

That combination matters more in these verticals than elsewhere, because providers serving igaming and high-risk lose banking relationships more often than the rest of the category, and a custodial provider doing so takes your balance with it.

Ask both where the entity sits and what happens to a held balance in an insolvency. Neither card answers it today, and the question is more useful than any remaining fee discussion.