Speend vs Cryptomus

The floor rate that is not an entry rate#

Cryptomus publishes 0.4% and reaches it by volume or negotiation, with new accounts starting at 2%. Speend publishes 0.5% applying from the first transaction.

For a merchant under serious volume that is a fourfold difference in the wrong direction from what the headlines suggest. This is the clearest example in the index of why the method scores published terms and records the caveat separately in the cons.

Where Cryptomus is genuinely stronger#

Plugin coverage. Seven named platforms against a shorter list at Speend is a real advantage for a store on a common cart, and first-party plugins matter beyond convenience because they receive security updates.

Asset breadth runs the other way: Speend publishes 300 or more against 120 or more. Both are wide enough that most merchants will not notice the difference.

Payer experience#

Speend states that the payer opens no account and faces no identity check, with KYB applying to the merchant only. Cryptomus requires business verification and publishes nothing about the payer side.

For a consumer-facing business that is a conversion question rather than a compliance one, and it is worth establishing before comparing rates at all.

Reading this pair by business type#

A small or mid-sized merchant takes Speend, on price and on the payer-side answer. The comparison is not close once the Cryptomus entry tier is known.

A high-volume merchant with negotiating leverage should get both quotes, since Cryptomus at its floor is among the cheapest published rates anywhere in this index and Speend states that its commission decreases with volume too.

A store on WooCommerce, PrestaShop or OpenCart should weight the plugin question heavily, because a maintained first-party integration is worth more than a small rate difference over a year.

What to send both of them#

To Cryptomus: what rate applies to my account at my current volume. That single answer decides most of this comparison and is not derivable from the published page.

To Speend: what the converting rate is, since the 0.5% covers same-currency settlement and the conversion figure is not published.

To both: the conversion spread as a number, and whether the rate can change and with how much notice.

What this comparison leaves open#

Settlement. Neither documents fiat payout to a bank account clearly, and both describe conversion in terms of stablecoins rather than bank currency. A business that needs euro or dollars arriving on a schedule should treat that as the unanswered question rather than the rate.

Both are custodial, so both hold funds between receipt and settlement, and neither publishes what happens to a balance during an account review.

Plugin coverage is the practical gap#

Cryptomus names WooCommerce, Shopify, OpenCart, PrestaShop, Magento, WHMCS and an API — the widest published platform list in this index. Speend names WooCommerce and an API.

For a store on anything but WordPress that difference decides the comparison before any fee discussion, because one side is an install and the other is a build. For a business integrating against an API directly it is worth nothing at all.

The payer-side difference has no equivalent on the other card#

Speend is built around the customer opening no account and passing no identity check. Cryptomus publishes nothing about the payer experience either way, which is the usual position in this category.

If your reason for accepting crypto is customers who will not or cannot use conventional rails, that property is the product rather than a feature. Measure your checkout completion rate rather than reasoning about it.

Assets: three hundred against a hundred and twenty#

Both are broad by the standards of this index, where several general-purpose processors publish counts around ten. The gap between them matters far less than the gap between either and the narrow end.

A published count is a provider claim rather than a verified list, and neither enumerates on the public pages. Ask both for the actual assets on the actual networks you receive on before treating the difference as real.

What neither of them publishes#

Conversion. Speend publishes 0.5% for same-currency settlement and no spread; Cryptomus publishes 0.4% and no spread. For a business settling into bank currency, the number that decides the comparison is absent from both cards.

Verification too, in different ways: Cryptomus publishes no policy at all, and Speend publishes business verification without detail. Neither lets you plan an onboarding timeline from public information.

Where each one is the obvious answer#

A store on Shopify takes Cryptomus, because it is the only indexed provider naming Shopify among its integrations and no fee argument overrides an integration that does not exist.

A high-risk or igaming merchant takes Speend, which names those verticals explicitly alongside forex and publishes a rate that applies to them. Cryptomus accepts igaming without specialising in it.

A merchant who wants the lowest published entry rate takes Cryptomus at 0.4%. The gap against 0.5% is small enough that almost any other consideration on this page outweighs it.

What to send each of them#

To Speend: the conversion spread as a number, and whether fiat settlement, mass payouts and point of sale exist at all. The pages are silent on four feature fields, which is a planning problem rather than a quality one.

To Cryptomus: the conversion spread, and what merchant verification requires in your jurisdiction. The card records verification as undisclosed, so an onboarding timeline cannot be planned from public information.

To both: the enumerated asset list for the networks you actually receive on. Three hundred and a hundred and twenty are claims, and neither is the list you integrate against.