Provider at a glance
- Category
- Payment Gateways
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- bitpay.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 74 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
BitPay
Crypto payment processor for merchants
Payment Gateways
#5 Overall
Ranked #5 of 12 payment gateways in the published ranking
74
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- Low evidence confidence
Is BitPay right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Trust record8/8, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Published criteria8/30 here; the category best is 15
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: United States, Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best crypto payment gateway shows where it lands for you.
What will BitPay cost you?
Pricing not verified
- Payments per month
- 500
- Average payment
- $100
How safe is BitPay?
- Evidence: unknown0 of 5 criteria scored; no receipt file yet. The score is provisional until a quoted source is on file.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to BitPay
Compare all 4- 3MoonPay Commerce2 points above76
- 4B2BinPay2 points above76
- 6Plisio3 points below71
For your setup
Find out if BitPay fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where BitPay lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best crypto payment gatewayNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why BitPay ranks #5
5 published criteria · Σ weight 100
This category publishes 5 criteria — region fit; settlement posture; integration path; operating model; coverage breadth — but no per-criterion strength has been established for BitPay yet. Its position comes from the engine's five dimensions below, measured against the 12 ranked rows. Per-criterion receipts appear once the evidence read lands.
DimensionAgainst the poolValueBestRank
Availability / 20 · constant here20.020.0#1/12
Published criteria / 308.015.0#10/12
Friction / 10 · constant here6.06.0#1/12
Trust record / 88.08.0#1/12
Measured data / 18 · constant here0.00.0#1/12
Margin−2behind B2BinPay, #4
RobustnessNot scored on criteriaits position comes from the engine’s dimensions, not from criterion scores a re-read could move
Evidence0 of 5 scoredno receipt file for this category
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Trust record — 8/8, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Published criteria — 8/30 against a category best of 15/30
Record watch-outs
- Less flexible for crypto-heavy treasury strategies
- Less appealing to control-first teams
Competitive position
Where BitPay leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 1220.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#10 / 128.0 of 30 · best 15.0
Friction#1 / 126.0 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 128.0 of 8 · pool best
Measured data#1 / 120.0 of 18 · constant here
Where BitPay leadsNo criterion in the top third of its pool.
Where it trailsNo criterion in the bottom third of its pool.
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
B2BinPay#4 of 12 · score 76 · 2.0 points ahead
BitPay leads onNo scored criterion
B2BinPay leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason B2BinPay is ahead: published criteria (+2.6 display points).Scenario cost: B2BinPay has no verified pricing for this scenario.
MoonPay Commerce#3 of 12 · score 76 · 2.0 points ahead
BitPay leads onNo scored criterion
MoonPay Commerce leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason MoonPay Commerce is ahead: published criteria (+18.2 display points).Scenario cost: MoonPay Commerce has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Plisio#6 of 12 · score 71 · 3.0 points behind
BitPay leads onNo scored criterion
Plisio leads onNo scored criterion
Largest single reason BitPay is ahead: trust record (+20.8 display points).Scenario cost: Plisio has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 74 · gap 5.0Why NOWPayments ranks above BitPay
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 5.0 to within rounding. BitPay is ahead on trust record (+10.4 in its favour).
DimensionThisNOWPaymentsGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here20.020.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight8.014.0−15.6, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here6.06.0same
Trust record · 9% weight8.04.0+10.4, better
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here0.00.0same
Net7479−5.0
Your scenario
BitPay is not priced for this scenario
Percentage and fixed legs on each payment, for a year. Excludes chargebacks, FX markup and settlement fees priced separately. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Payments per month · your input500
Average payment · your input$100
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in the provider’s currency; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Pricing not verified
Under the default inputs · currency not statedCategory medianNot priced0 of 13 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
13 of 13 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
0 of 5 cells scored
Score evidenceUnknownno observation on file
No structured observation on file for this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.Public receiptsNo receipt filecategory publishes no receipt file
This category publishes no receipt file, because no structured research payload exists for it yet.Evidence confidenceNot yet ratedcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
No structured observation on file for this category; the receipt count is not counted.RobustnessNot scored on criteriano re-run describes this row
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.No structured observation is on file for this provider in this category; the strengths are the catalog’s published values.
12 listed rows in this category still await an evidence read and sit outside the scored pool.
No receipt file. This category publishes no receipt file, because no structured research payload exists for it yet. The ledger below shows the published strengths without their receipts; the scores on this page are unchanged.
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Region fitstrength — · weight 22Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.Settlement posturestrength — · weight 24Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.Integration pathstrength — · weight 20Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.Operating modelstrength — · weight 18Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.Coverage breadthstrength — · weight 16Report an error———
Not scored
No strength is established; the criterion contributes nothing and is not treated as zero.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Custody failure: whoever holds the assets loses or withholds them.Scored by Operating model · 18%
- Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.Scored by Settlement posture · 24%
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Liveness failure, Insolvency failure, Regulatory failure, Exit failure, Information failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Region fit (22%), Integration path (20%), Coverage breadth (16%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Not published
- Prices published in
- Not published
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- Not published
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- us, global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with BitPay: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
Review date not recordedMethodology v2026.10.18
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category 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
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 74, #5 of 12. 0 of 5 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt payment_gateway:bitpay:2026.10.18:85a8181234af
Are you BitPay? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.
Show this rank on your site
Editorial review of BitPay , on file since April 2026 — the review is separate from the score.