Skip to main content

Head-to-head · Onramps

Fonbnk vs Alchemy Pay Alchemy Pay leads by 1 point.

Alchemy Pay scores 1 point above Fonbnk, led by named licence and KYC and speed. Fonbnk ranks #15 and Alchemy Pay #12 of 16 published onramps. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.

Fonbnk41
Alchemy Pay42
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #15 and #12 of 16
Methodology v2026.10.18Ranking snapshot Evidence verified through 4 published criteria5 score dimensions Receipt #cc-VS-FONBNK-VS-ALCHEMY-PAY-574cdca1
Published verdictRanking snapshot 3 November 2026

Alchemy Pay leads by 1 point

Alchemy Pay scores 1 point above Fonbnk, led by named licence and KYC and speed.

Fonbnk #15 of 1641
Alchemy Pay #12 of 1642
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termAlchemy Pay leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Fonbnk on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermAlchemy PayFonbnkWeightPoints
Purchase cost1/103/108.2−4.2for Fonbnk−2.2 of 32
Named licence3/101/105.3+2.7for Alchemy Pay+1.4 of 32
KYC and speed6/105/104.3+1.1for Alchemy Pay+0.6 of 32
Measured dataScore dimension8.32.818+14.3for Alchemy Pay
Net of the terms+13.9
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+13.8
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below4241+1.0

Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.

  • Alchemy Pay's lead rests on lighter criteria: Fonbnk is ahead on purchase cost, which carries more weight (34) than any criterion Alchemy Pay leads on (22).
  • A floor bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
Quick facts

At a glance

1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactFonbnkAlchemy Pay
PricingSnapshotFonbnk Terms of Service (https://fonbnk.com/terms-of-service), fetched 29 September 2026, HTTP 200, unchanged from 2026-08-18: "2.3 Processing Fee. You agree to pay a processing fee of 2.5% for all transactions related to the Fonbnk PayWidget unless a specific marketing promotion indicates otherwise." and "2.4 Blockchain Network Fees. You will be responsible for any blockchain network fees incurred per Supported Blockchain for On-Chain Transfers to your wallet. These fees are dynamic and will be determined based on network congestion during the transaction." No pricing page exists (https://www.fonbnk.com/pricing returns HTTP 404 on 29 September 2026) and no exchange-rate spread or benchmark is disclosed on the Terms or the docs. Worked example (our arithmetic, not a Fonbnk figure): a purchase worth about USD 232 (EUR 200) carries a 2.5 percent processing fee of about USD 5.80, plus the network fee and an undisclosed local-currency exchange spread.No fee schedule is published. The Alchemy Pay docs page "Fiat currencies, Payment Method Coverages plus Other Details" (https://alchemypay.readme.io/docs/fiat-currency-country-payment-method-coverage-plus-fees-and-limits.md, updatedAt 21 November 2025), fetched 29 September 2026, HTTP 200, links a Notion table "On-Ramp Payment Methods" whose columns (processing time, KYC countries, currencies, KYC level, pay-way code, method type, minimum, maximum and daily limits, documents) include no fee column (read through the Notion API on 29 September 2026). The Crypto Ramp Terms ("Last updated: Dec 25, 2025") say only "9.1 All fees payable under this Agreement are displayed during the purchase flow", and the marketing page says "Your users will appreciate the lowest fees in the industry." Sampled from Alchemy Pay's public quote API on 29 September 2026 (not published prices): a card quote for 200 euros carried a ramp fee of 4.19 percent and delivered about 4.3 percent less USDT than the USD rate in the same response; a Pix quote for 1,206 reais carried a 2.67 percent ramp fee and about 4.5 percent all-in; a UPI quote returned no data that day.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotafrica, latam, asiaeurope, asia, latam
From the published criteria

Which should you pick?

Fonbnk

41#15 of 16
Pick it when
Pick Fonbnk if purchase cost matters most — it scores 3/10 to Alchemy Pay's 1/10 there (weight 34).
Strength
Kyc friction time to coins — 5/10
Tradeoff
Your recourse is structurally thinner than your purchase: a US$500 on-ramp ceiling, a refund path that exists only as a help-centre 'refund link' email the terms never promise, no status page, and a Delaware ToS capping Fonbnk's total liability at US$50 — about a fifth of the EUR200-equivalent purchase — with no licence in any of the 20 countries its docs listed on 2026-09-29 to complain to a regulator about.

Alchemy Pay

42#12 of 16
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Alchemy Pay if named licence matters most — it scores 3/10 to Fonbnk's 1/10 there (weight 22).
Strength
Kyc friction time to coins — 6/10
Tradeoff
The widget will quote you a rate whose spread is never disclosed and can be enormous on exactly the rails this segment exists for — a sampled ₹22,153 UPI purchase delivered USDT at ₹111.9 apiece against the ₹95.79 interbank rate embedded in the same API response, a 19.7% all-in the buyer only discovers by doing the maths on the delivered amount — and if Alchemy Pay rejects your order after capture, clause 6.5 lets it charge you a processing fee to refund your own money.
Self-identify in 10 seconds

Which one is actually for you?

Fonbnk

Choose Fonbnk if purchase cost matters most

  • Purchase cost: 3/10 against 1/10 for Alchemy Pay (weight 34)
Alchemy PayLeads

Choose Alchemy Pay if named licence matters most

  • Named licence: 3/10 against 1/10 for Fonbnk (weight 22)
  • KYC and speed: 6/10 against 5/10 for Fonbnk (weight 18)
Criterion by criterion

Scorecard

Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology

Purchase cost

by 2 of 10weight 8.2 of 86Fonbnk leads
Fonbnk3 out of 10
Alchemy Pay1 out of 10

Quote honesty

weight 6.2 of 86Tie
Fonbnk2 out of 10
Alchemy Pay2 out of 10

Named licence

by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Alchemy Pay leads
Fonbnk1 out of 10
Alchemy Pay3 out of 10

KYC and speed

by 1 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Alchemy Pay leads
Fonbnk5 out of 10
Alchemy Pay6 out of 10

Score dimensions

weights sum to 86

The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.

Availabilityweight 20 of 86
Fonbnk12/20Alchemy Pay12/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Fonbnk6.4/30Alchemy Pay6.2/30
Fonbnk leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Fonbnk2.7/10Alchemy Pay2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Fonbnk3.2/8Alchemy Pay3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Fonbnk2.8/18Alchemy Pay8.3/18
Alchemy Pay leads
Decision rulePublished order

Choose Alchemy Pay unless the term Fonbnk leads on is the one you are buying.

Pick Fonbnk if purchase cost matters most — it scores 3/10 to Alchemy Pay's 1/10 there (weight 34).

The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .

From the published order

Next best action

If this isn't your case

Other matchups worth comparing

How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
  • Regulatory failure: no licence where you are, or a forced market exit.
    Scored by Whose money-transmission licence is my money riding — and is that entity my counterparty? · 22% (Fonbnk 1/10, Alchemy Pay 3/10)
  • Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.
    Scored by Is the number on the widget the number that settles? · 26% (Fonbnk 2/10, Alchemy Pay 2/10)
  • Information failure: the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.
    Scored by How much identity do I surrender before the coins land in my wallet, and how long does that take? · 18% (Fonbnk 5/10, Alchemy Pay 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Control failure, Liveness failure, Custody failure, Insolvency failure, Exit 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: What does a €200 purchase actually cost me — by card and by bank, all-in? (34%).
Questions

Frequently asked questions

Alchemy Pay scores 1 point above Fonbnk, led by named licence and KYC and speed. Published scores, out of 100: Fonbnk 41 (rank 15 of 16 onramps), Alchemy Pay 42 (rank 12 of 16).

Related pages

Go deeper

Reviewed Next review by Methodology v2026.10.18
How this page is reviewed

Reviewed means both products compared here 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

Free advisorNo signup needed

Skip the comparison — get your best match

Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.

No signupFree first pass · PrivateNo spam · No account

Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research

Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research