Lightning Payment Infrastructure
Lightning Payment Infrastructure evaluated across custody of funds in flight, liquidity supply and published cost per payment, published availability and in-flight behaviour, and whether you can leave the host with your keys and channels.
23providers tracked
13ranked (methodology v2026.11.1)
12 November 2026Ranking snapshot
30 September 2026oldest read · due 14 NovIndependent. Evidence-based.We rank with a published method and sourced evidence. No one can pay to rank.How it works
Set your country and amount to see your costs ·
Your setup
What your country changes
Pick a country to see which Lightning payment providers serve it. Nothing is hidden — any that does not is listed with that reason.- 🇺🇸 United States
- 🇨🇦 Canada
- 🇲🇽 Mexico
- 🇬🇧 United Kingdom
- 🇩🇪 Germany
- 🇫🇷 France
- 🇮🇹 Italy
- 🇪🇸 Spain
- 🇳🇱 Netherlands
- 🇨🇭 Switzerland
- 🇸🇪 Sweden
- 🇳🇴 Norway
This affects provider availability.
Requirements (0)
Preferences (0)
Preferences re-weight Fit for you, which needs your country.
More filters
13 providers match your requirements
Out of 13 ranked providers. 0 excluded.
What this ranks
Ranked here: Lightning payment infrastructure that a business calls through an API to pay or get paid over Lightning, compared on custody of funds in flight, cost per payment and exit.Not ranked here: end-user Lightning wallets other than Alby Hub, which is also node infrastructure, services with no payment rail or no Lightning integration, and liquidity vendors with only a client-rendered widget.13 of the 23 assessed are ranked; 10 were turned away by name. Who, and whyRequirements narrow the list; they never change a published ChainChoice Score. How the ranking works
Olympus by ZEUS
How Olympus by ZEUS was chosen
Wins the weighted total without leading any single criterionAn LSP that prices liquidity to the satoshi
81 / 100 out of 100published score, #1 of all 13 worldwide
Evidence
High
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.Liquidity supply and published cost per paymentExit: keys, channels and migration off the hostCustody of funds in flight
Why it leads
- Olympus by ZEUS is 4 points ahead of Alby Hub, mainly on its measured data (a published fee or rate figure), not on the published criteria.
- Ahead of Alby Hub on measured data, outside the published criteria (+3.6 points)
- Provider states broad availability
Tradeoff
Availability and outage behaviour: 4 points below the best in this ranking
Share
#ProviderPriceCompare
2
Self-custodial Lightning node
77 / 100 out of 100
3
Lightning and stablecoin payments processor...
76 / 100 out of 100
4
Custodial-only Lightning API on the open-source...
75 / 100 out of 100
5
Enterprise Lightning payments API on two paths:...
73 / 100 out of 100
6
Lightning settlement API at a flat 0.5% plus...
72 / 100 out of 100
7
Custodial Bitcoin and Lightning payments API -...
69 / 100 out of 100
8
BS
Hosted, non-custodial Core Lightning nodes:...
65 / 100 out of 100
9
Custodial bitcoin and Lightning merchant rail...
63 / 100 out of 100
10
Tied for #9 · ordered by name, A to Z
Custodial Lightning payments API
63 / 100 out of 100
11
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (41.40 against 41.30)
Synonym's Lightning liquidity vendor
63 / 100 out of 100
12
LN
Open-source Lightning accounts layer - hosted...
62 / 100 out of 100
13
Same score, not joint · ordered by weighted total (41.00 against 40.80)
Non-custodial Lightning SDK. Keys stay
62 / 100 out of 100
Compare providers (0)
See key differences in features, fees, security and more.
Liquidity and published cost
Liquidity supply and published cost per payment
24% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Liquidity and published cost (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Olympus by ZEUS | 10 | 81 |
| Alby Hub | 10 | 77 |
| Strike | 10 | 69 |
| Blocktank (Synonym) | 10 | 63 |
| Speed | 8 | 76 |
| Blink (Galoy) | 8 | 75 |
| Breez SDK | 6 | 62 |
| Voltage | 4 | 73 |
| Amboss | 4 | 72 |
| Blockstream Greenlight | 4 | 65 |
| OpenNode | 4 | 63 |
| ZBD | 4 | 63 |
| LNbits | 4 | 62 |
Custody of funds in flight
Custody of funds in flight
26% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Custody of funds in flight (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Blockstream Greenlight | 10 | 65 |
| Olympus by ZEUS | 8 | 81 |
| Alby Hub | 8 | 77 |
| Voltage | 8 | 73 |
| Amboss | 8 | 72 |
| LNbits | 8 | 62 |
| Breez SDK | 8 | 62 |
| Speed | 6 | 76 |
| Blink (Galoy) | 6 | 75 |
| OpenNode | 6 | 63 |
| ZBD | 6 | 63 |
| Strike | 4 | 69 |
| Blocktank (Synonym) | 4 | 63 |
Exit and portability
Exit: keys, channels and migration off the host
22% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Exit and portability (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Olympus by ZEUS | 10 | 81 |
| Alby Hub | 10 | 77 |
| Blink (Galoy) | 10 | 75 |
| Amboss | 10 | 72 |
| Blockstream Greenlight | 8 | 65 |
| LNbits | 8 | 62 |
| Breez SDK | 8 | 62 |
| Speed | 6 | 76 |
| Voltage | 6 | 73 |
| Strike | 6 | 69 |
| OpenNode | 6 | 63 |
| ZBD | 6 | 63 |
| Blocktank (Synonym) | 4 | 63 |
Availability and outage behaviour
Published availability and in-flight behaviour
28% of the published criteria weight. Scored 0–10 from the published evidence; the order below is by this criterion, then the published ranking.
| Provider | Availability and outage behaviour (0–10) | ChainChoice Score |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | 10 | 76 |
| Voltage | 10 | 73 |
| Olympus by ZEUS | 6 | 81 |
| Alby Hub | 6 | 77 |
| Blink (Galoy) | 6 | 75 |
| Amboss | 6 | 72 |
| Strike | 6 | 69 |
| OpenNode | 6 | 63 |
| ZBD | 6 | 63 |
| Blocktank (Synonym) | 4 | 63 |
| LNbits | 4 | 62 |
| Blockstream Greenlight | 2 | 65 |
| Breez SDK | 2 | 62 |
All 4 published criteria
Every ranked row’s score on each criterion, in the published order. Choose a column to order by it.
| Provider | ChainChoice Score | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Olympus by ZEUS | 8 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 81 |
| 2 | Alby Hub | 8 | 10 | 6 | 10 | 77 |
| 3 | Speed | 6 | 8 | 10 | 6 | 76 |
| 4 | Blink (Galoy) | 6 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 75 |
| 5 | Voltage | 8 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 73 |
| 6 | Amboss | 8 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 72 |
| 7 | Strike | 4 | 10 | 6 | 6 | 69 |
| 8 | Blockstream Greenlight | 10 | 4 | 2 | 8 | 65 |
| 9 | OpenNode | 6 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 63 |
| 10 | ZBD | 6 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 63 |
| 11 | Blocktank (Synonym) | 4 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 63 |
| 12 | LNbits | 8 | 4 | 4 | 8 | 62 |
| 13 | Breez SDK | 8 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 62 |
How this ranking works
How firm the #1 is, the per-criterion arithmetic behind each score, who pays ChainChoice, and which Lightning payment infrastructure were assessed and left out.
FirmThis verdict holds under every one-point re-read
See the arithmetic
Every published criterion was moved up and down by one point and the ranking re-run. The same product came first each time. The published rankings file
Why this score4 published criteria · leads 2 of 4
Published criterionWtScore, and the best hereGap/10 out of 10Pts
Custody of funds in flight6.2−286.7
Liquidity supply and published cost per payment5.8·107.7
Published availability and in-flight behaviour6.7−465.4
Exit: keys, channels and migration off the host5.3·107.0
Σ methodology points26.8/32
Each bar is the score on that criterion’s own 0–10 scale, never rescaled to the pool. The dark line is the best any product here reached on that axis. Wt is the most the criterion can add to the 86-point weighted total. Pts is weight × score × 32; the sum is the methodology score, and each weighted point behind the leader costs 2.6 on the displayed score. how these are weighted
Why it ranks first
Why Olympus by ZEUS leads this category right now
An LSP that prices liquidity to the satoshi, quotes the fee through its API before the wrapped invoice issues and posts 21 measured components - but leaves service levels to a private Service Agreement, and caps one user at 10,000,000 sats. Strongest on liquidity supply and published cost per payment (10/10): Olympus publishes channel prices (10,000 sats up to 1m sats, 1% from 1m to 5m, 2 sats per wrapped invoice), returns an order total through its LSPS1 API before payment, bounds channels at 100,000 to 10,000,000 sats, and separates its first-hop routing fee from later hops. Weakest on published availability and in-flight behaviour (6/10): ZEUS runs a status board of 18 monitors with 90-day percentages, which records a multi-day outage of both LSP endpoints in August 2026 (LSPS1 at 94.329% over 90 days). Its terms do not warrant uninterrupted service and leave service levels to a separate agreement. Published price: Just-in-time (0-conf) channels, "in low fee environments": "New Channel Open (up to 1m sats)" "10,000 sats"; "New Channel Open (1m - 5m sats)" "1%"; "Wrapped invoices without channel opens" "2 sats".
Best for
Liquidity supply and published cost per payment — 10/10
Main tradeoff
Two limits to size before building. A hard ceiling: 'At present, users can only have a max total capacity of 10,000,000 sats across all their channels with the Olympus by ZEUS LSP node' (docs.zeusln.app/lsp/channel-differences) - 0.1 BTC per end user, whatever the volume. And the marketing figure is not the measured one: zeusln.com/route shows '99.9%+' as a node-uptime stat, while on 2026-09-04 the status.zeusln.com monitor feed puts the two endpoints an integration calls at '96.597%' (Flow Mainnet) and '94.305%' (LSPS1 Mainnet) over 90 days, and LSPS1 Mainnet at '83.056%' over 30.
Verify before signup
Just-in-time (0-conf) channels, "in low fee environments": "New Channel Open (up to 1m sats)" "10,000 sats"; "New Channel Open (1m - 5m sats)" "1%"; "Wrapped invoices without channel opens" "2 sats". "In high fee environments, channel open fees will vary based on block space demand." Purchase-in-advance (LSPS1) channels carry no printed rate: the page sends the buyer to the web portal for a quote. "ZEUS Pay fees are now at zero." - docs.zeusln.app/lsp/fees, fetched 30 September 2026.
Recommendation summary
What should decide this category
Who holds the money between your payer sending and your balance settling?
Can you model the cost of a payment, and of the capacity to receive one, before you sign?
If you had to move off this rail next quarter, what would you be able to take with you?
Quick picks
Strong options in this category
Start with the lead choice first, then use the shortlist only if you still need a challenger or stronger fit for a specific setup.
Best overall
Olympus by ZEUS
An LSP that prices liquidity to the satoshi, quotes the fee through its API before the wrapped invoice issues and posts 21 measured components - but leaves service levels to a private Service Agreement, and caps one user at 10,000,000 sats.
An LSP that prices liquidity to the satoshi, quotes the fee through its API before the wrapped invoice issues and posts 21 measured components - but leaves service levels to a private Service Agreement, and caps one user at 10,000,000 sats. Strongest on liquidity supply and published cost per payment (10/10): Olympus publishes channel prices (10,000 sats up to 1m sats, 1% from 1m to 5m, 2 sats per wrapped invoice), returns an order total through its LSPS1 API before payment, bounds channels at 100,000 to 10,000,000 sats, and separates its first-hop routing fee from later hops. Weakest on published availability and in-flight behaviour (6/10): ZEUS runs a status board of 18 monitors with 90-day percentages, which records a multi-day outage of both LSP endpoints in August 2026 (LSPS1 at 94.329% over 90 days). Its terms do not warrant uninterrupted service and leave service levels to a separate agreement. Published price: Just-in-time (0-conf) channels, "in low fee environments": "New Channel Open (up to 1m sats)" "10,000 sats"; "New Channel Open (1m - 5m sats)" "1%"; "Wrapped invoices without channel opens" "2 sats".
Best for: Liquidity supply and published cost per payment — 10/10
Custody of funds in flight · weight 26%8/10Liquidity supply and published cost per payment · weight 24%10/10Published availability and in-flight behaviour · weight 28%6/10Exit: keys, channels and migration off the host · weight 22%10/10
Quick pick
Alby Hub
Self-custodial Lightning node with an NWC API, self-hosted or as a hosted Alby Cloud Hub: 0% added transaction fees, a $3.9/month Pro tier, a documented migration off the host, and no service level commitment for Alby Cloud.
Self-custodial Lightning node with an NWC API, self-hosted or as a hosted Alby Cloud Hub: 0% added transaction fees, a $3.9/month Pro tier, a documented migration off the host, and no service level commitment for Alby Cloud. Strongest on liquidity supply and published cost per payment (10/10): Alby Hub adds no transaction fee and states that costs depend on the chosen LSP's lease price, routing and network fees. It publishes LSP sending fees from 0% to 0.2% + 0.001 sat, channel sizes from 500k to 5M sats, a $3.9/month Pro tier and pre-order LSP fee quotes. Weakest on published availability and in-flight behaviour (6/10): Alby runs a status board with 25 components and an incident feed dating back to June 2025, but its terms offer Alby Cloud "as is" and state that Alby does "not provide any service level commitments". Published price: "Current listed sending fees range from 0% with LNServer and Olympus to around 0.2% + 0.001 sat with FlashSats, while channel lease examples range from about 5,000 sats for a 2M sat LNServer channel to about 45,090 sats for a 3M sat Megalith LSP channel." and…
Best for: Liquidity supply and published cost per payment — 10/10
Custody of funds in flight · weight 26%8/10Liquidity supply and published cost per payment · weight 24%10/10Published availability and in-flight behaviour · weight 28%6/10Exit: keys, channels and migration off the host · weight 22%10/10
Quick pick
Speed
Lightning and stablecoin payments processor sold white-label as Connect: a public rate card, an eleven-component status board and a published uptime SLA; its terms hand custody and the power to move assets to CoinX, not Speed.
Lightning and stablecoin payments processor sold white-label as Connect: a public rate card, an eleven-component status board and a published uptime SLA; its terms hand custody and the power to move assets to CoinX, not Speed. Strongest on published availability and in-flight behaviour (10/10): Speed states "99.99% Uptime" on its pricing page and a 99.9% uptime SLA elsewhere, runs an eleven-component status board with 90-day uptime and Slack maintenance messages, and documents payment expiry and request deduplication in its API reference. Weakest on custody of funds in flight (6/10): Speed's terms state that "Speed itself does not custody user crypto assets"; custody and asset movement sit with CoinX under an MSB licence. Connect restricts platform accounts from withdrawals and transfers, but no page documents a mechanism that stops the custodian moving funds alone. Published price: "0%" "transaction fee" on Speed Wallet payments against "1%" "transaction fee" on external wallet payments, under "No monthly fees or setup costs" and "Volume discount available"; payouts: "Lightning Network" "BTC" "Free" "Instant", "Bitcoin On-chain" "0%"…
Best for: Availability and outage behaviour — 10/10
Custody of funds in flight · weight 26%6/10Liquidity supply and published cost per payment · weight 24%8/10Published availability and in-flight behaviour · weight 28%10/10Exit: keys, channels and migration off the host · weight 22%6/10
Quick pick
Blink (Galoy)
Custodial-only Lightning API on the open-source Galoy stack: fees published to the sat, fee-probe endpoints before send, a self-host path — and a dated, region-by-region wind-down of the custodial rail into non-custodial Spark accounts.
Custodial-only Lightning API on the open-source Galoy stack: fees published to the sat, fee-probe endpoints before send, a self-host path — and a dated, region-by-region wind-down of the custodial rail into non-custodial Spark accounts. Strongest on exit: keys, channels and migration off the host (10/10): Blink lets custodial funds leave at any time by Lightning or on-chain withdrawal, or by moving to its non-custodial Spark mode. It publishes a dated wind-down of the custodial service, names alternative wallets such as Phoenix, Breez and Zeus, and documents self-hosting its open-source stack. Weakest on custody of funds in flight (6/10): Blink holds API balances: the API runs in Custodial Mode only, with bitcoin in a segregated, full-reserve structure, mostly multisig cold storage plus a hot wallet for payments, under an RFSA licence in Roatan. No mechanism stops Blink moving API funds alone. Published price: "Intraledger (between Blink users) – no fee!", "Outgoing Lightning – only pay routing fees (~0.02%)", "Stablesats conversion – 0.50% spread, no extra fees"; on-chain "For deposits equal to or lower than 1,000,000 sats: 2,500 sats fixed fee", "For deposits…
Best for: Exit and portability — 10/10
Custody of funds in flight · weight 26%6/10Liquidity supply and published cost per payment · weight 24%8/10Published availability and in-flight behaviour · weight 28%6/10Exit: keys, channels and migration off the host · weight 22%10/10
Considered and not ranked
10 products we looked at and left out
A shortlist is only honest if it says who it turned away. Each of these was assessed against the same published criteria as the ranked table and excluded for a stated reason — not overlooked.
We assessed 23 products here and rank 13 — 57% of what we looked at. That share is of the products we assessed, not of the category: how many exist is not something we can count, so we do not claim a number for it.
LightsparkZapritePhoenix (ACINQ)MuunWallet of SatoshiMegalithLQwDFlashsatsLNServerBitnob
What this ranking does not assess
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored by one of its criteria.
Which criterion scores each family, and why the others do not apply, is in /data/risk-coverage.json.
How this ranking is built
Reviewed on custody of funds in flight, liquidity supply and published cost per payment, published availability and in-flight behaviour, and the exit: keys, channels and migration off the host.
Data checked Sep 2026 · Independent rankings · We show our work
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means every product ranked on this page was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
Direct answer
What is the best Lightning payment provider in 2026?
Olympus by ZEUS ranks #1 overall for Lightning payment infrastructure on ChainChoice. An LSP that prices liquidity to the satoshi, quotes the fee through its API before the wrapped invoice issues and posts 21 measured components - but leaves service levels to a private Service Agreement, and caps one user at 10,000,000 sats. It holds that rank under an affiliate-blind methodology scored across 4 published, weighted criteria — the code that ranks providers physically cannot read affiliate payouts (CI-enforced), so a payout can't move a rank. The verdict re-computes on every fee change, incident, or regulatory action; the full reasoning and the audit receipt are under Methodology.
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Liveness failure: the operator stops, censors you or loses data.Scored by Published availability and in-flight behaviour · 28% (Olympus by ZEUS 6/10, Alby Hub 6/10, Speed 10/10)
- Custody failure: whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Custody of funds in flight · 26% (Olympus by ZEUS 8/10, Alby Hub 8/10, Speed 6/10)
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Exit: keys, channels and migration off the host · 22% (Olympus by ZEUS 10/10, Alby Hub 10/10, Speed 6/10)
Every failure family that applies to this category is scored.
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Liquidity supply and published cost per payment (24%).
FAQs
3 questions readers ask before choosing Lightning payment infrastructure.
Frequently asked
Questions people ask before choosing Lightning infra
What is the best Lightning payment infrastructure?
It depends which of two answers you want, and the pool splits on it. The vendors that let you hold the keys and the node tend to price by conversation; the vendors that publish a rate card to the basis point tend to hold the funds. Olympus by ZEUS and Alby Hub tie at the top from opposite ends of that split, which is why this category publishes its tie-break rules.
Is a published uptime number the same as a good one?
No, and the difference is the point. An SLA is a promise about the future; a status page with ninety days of per-component history is a record of the past, and only one of the two can be checked. Some vendors here advertise a headline percentage with nothing behind it while others publish measured per-component uptime that is lower than the headline others advertise.
How much does the exit matter if the vendor is fine today?
Voltage is the reason it is weighted at all. It shut its self-serve node product on 31 August 2026 and published an ordered runbook that states plainly it will not support node migration. A buyer who had read the exit terms before integrating had a different year from one who had not.
Free advisor·No signup needed
Still unsure? Get your best Lightning infra pick
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — then review the evidence before deciding.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Best picks
Best Lightning payment infrastructure in 2026
Weighted on published availability and in-flight behaviour (28), custody of funds in flight (26), liquidity supply and published cost per payment (24), and the exit — keys, channels and migration off the host (22). Availability leads because a rail that stops is a business that stops, and a measured per-component record is a different claim from a headline SLA. The heaviest disagreement in the pool is not about quality: the vendors that let you hold the keys tend to price by conversation, and the vendors that publish a rate card tend to hold the funds.
Best overall
Olympus by ZEUS
An LSP that prices liquidity to the satoshi, quotes the fee through its API before the wrapped invoice issues and posts 21 measured components - but leaves service levels to a private Service Agreement, and caps one user at 10,000,000 sats.
Data checked Sep 2026
An LSP that prices liquidity to the satoshi, quotes the fee through its API before the wrapped invoice issues and posts 21 measured components - but leaves service levels to a private Service Agreement, and caps one user at 10,000,000 sats. Strongest on liquidity supply and published cost per payment (10/10): Olympus publishes channel prices (10,000 sats up to 1m sats, 1% from 1m to 5m, 2 sats per wrapped invoice), returns an order total through its LSPS1 API before payment, bounds channels at 100,000 to 10,000,000 sats, and separates its first-hop routing fee from later hops. Weakest on published availability and in-flight behaviour (6/10): ZEUS runs a status board of 18 monitors with 90-day percentages, which records a multi-day outage of both LSP endpoints in August 2026 (LSPS1 at 94.329% over 90 days). Its terms do not warrant uninterrupted service and leave service levels to a separate agreement. Published price: Just-in-time (0-conf) channels, "in low fee environments": "New Channel Open (up to 1m sats)" "10,000 sats"; "New Channel Open (1m - 5m sats)" "1%"; "Wrapped invoices without channel opens" "2 sats".
Best for: Liquidity supply and published cost per payment — 10/10
Browse this network
MS
Written and reviewed by Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research