Mercuryo scores 16 points above Fonbnk, led by purchase cost, quote honesty, and named licence. Mercuryo ranks #7 and Fonbnk #15 of 16 published onramps. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
MEMercuryo57
vs
Fonbnk41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #15 of 16
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+28.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below5741+16.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
A floor bound on one row means the criterion arithmetic does not reproduce the displayed gap exactly.
MercuryoScore 57Multi-entity EU-focused widget rail — EEA crypto flow on Criptan Trade S.L.'s CNMV MiCA CASP (contracting via non-regulated Moneychurros S.L.), non-EEA on a Canadian FINTRAC MSB, UK FCA EMI for the e-money leg only — with a published CAPPED fee schedule (card up to 5.5% min EUR 1, SEPA up to 3% min EUR 2, average 3.95%) but an unquantified embedded spread, a partner-set 0-2% Infrastructure Fee, and a global-ToS rate struck at the execution moment.Strength: Licence identity — 6/10Watch-out: Outside the US the confirm-button number is not contractually binding: the global ToS strikes the rate 'at the execution moment', warns the final price 'may differ from the price specified when placing an order', forbids withdrawing a submitted order, embeds an unquantified spread in the displayed price, and lets each partner surface add a 0-2% Infrastructure Fee — so the same EUR 200 purchase costs materially different amounts depending on which widget integration you met.FonbnkScore 41Mobile-money, bank and digital-wallet rail turning KES/NGN/GHS and ten other local currencies into stablecoins in the 18 countries the provider states on 2026-09-29 have an on-ramp channel (its homepage says '19 Markets'; the docs call airtime 'off-ramp only, everywhere') — the most local rail in the pool, and the pool's silence specimen on fees, quote binding and licences.Strength: Kyc friction time to coins — 5/10Watch-out: 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.
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactMercuryoFonbnk
PricingSnapshotMercuryo help article "How does Mercuryo calculate the price and fees for my transaction?" (article 30404513537565, last edited 15 July 2026; the HTML page returns HTTP 403 to non-browser clients and was read through the help-centre API, HTTP 200, fetched 29 September 2026). Mercuryo fee: "the fee ranges from 0% to 5.5%, with a minimum of €1 for smaller on-ramp/buy transactions"; Buy on-ramp (cards, mobile pay, alternative payment methods) "up to 5.5%, or min of €1"; Buy on-ramp (bank transfers) "up to 3%, or min of €2"; "Our average service fee is 3.95%." Non-EUR purchases: "an extra fee of 0.25% to 1% applies, depending on the chosen fiat currency". Partner Infrastructure Fee: "Typically ranging from 0% to 2%, never exceeding 5%." Spread: "The spread is embedded in the displayed crypto-asset price during checkout", with no percentage and no named benchmark. Network fee separate, not quantified. Worked example (our arithmetic, not a Mercuryo figure): a EUR 200 card purchase carries a Mercuryo fee of up to EUR 11.00 (5.5 percent cap) plus an Infrastructure Fee of typically up to EUR 4.00 and at most EUR 10.00, before spread and network fee; by bank transfer the Mercuryo fee is up to EUR 6.00 (3 percent cap). The global Terms of Service (mercuryo.io/legal/terms-global, Version 4.7.5) still state a flat buy fee of 3.95%, which does not match this capped schedule.Fonbnk 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.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshoteurope, us, caafrica, latam, asia
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
ME
Mercuryo
57#7 of 16
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Mercuryo if purchase cost matters most — it scores 5/10 to Fonbnk's 3/10 there (weight 34).
Strength
Licence identity — 6/10
Tradeoff
Outside the US the confirm-button number is not contractually binding: the global ToS strikes the rate 'at the execution moment', warns the final price 'may differ from the price specified when placing an order', forbids withdrawing a submitted order, embeds an unquantified spread in the displayed price, and lets each partner surface add a 0-2% Infrastructure Fee — so the same EUR 200 purchase costs materially different amounts depending on which widget integration you met.
Fonbnk
41#15 of 16
Pick it when
Fonbnk leads Mercuryo on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
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.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
MEMercuryoLeads
Choose Mercuryo if purchase cost matters most
Purchase cost: 5/10 against 3/10 for Fonbnk (weight 34)
Quote honesty: 4/10 against 2/10 for Fonbnk (weight 26)
Named licence: 6/10 against 1/10 for Fonbnk (weight 22)
MercuryoScore 57Multi-entity EU-focused widget rail — EEA crypto flow on Criptan Trade S.L.'s CNMV MiCA CASP (contracting via non-regulated Moneychurros S.L.), non-EEA on a Canadian FINTRAC MSB, UK FCA EMI for the e-money leg only — with a published CAPPED fee schedule (card up to 5.5% min EUR 1, SEPA up to 3% min EUR 2, average 3.95%) but an unquantified embedded spread, a partner-set 0-2% Infrastructure Fee, and a global-ToS rate struck at the execution moment.Strength: Licence identity — 6/10Watch-out: Outside the US the confirm-button number is not contractually binding: the global ToS strikes the rate 'at the execution moment', warns the final price 'may differ from the price specified when placing an order', forbids withdrawing a submitted order, embeds an unquantified spread in the displayed price, and lets each partner surface add a 0-2% Infrastructure Fee — so the same EUR 200 purchase costs materially different amounts depending on which widget integration you met.
Fonbnk
Fonbnk leads Mercuryo on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
FonbnkScore 41Mobile-money, bank and digital-wallet rail turning KES/NGN/GHS and ten other local currencies into stablecoins in the 18 countries the provider states on 2026-09-29 have an on-ramp channel (its homepage says '19 Markets'; the docs call airtime 'off-ramp only, everywhere') — the most local rail in the pool, and the pool's silence specimen on fees, quote binding and licences.Strength: Kyc friction time to coins — 5/10Watch-out: 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.
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 86Mercuryo leads
Mercuryo5/10 out of 10
Fonbnk3/10 out of 10
Quote honesty
by 2 of 10weight 6.2 of 86Mercuryo leads
Mercuryo4/10 out of 10
Fonbnk2/10 out of 10
Named licence
by 5 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Mercuryo leads
Mercuryo6/10 out of 10
Fonbnk1/10 out of 10
KYC and speed
weight 4.3 of 86Tie
Mercuryo5/10 out of 10
Fonbnk5/10 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
Mercuryo12/20Fonbnk12/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Mercuryo11.9/30Fonbnk6.4/30
Mercuryo leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Mercuryo2.7/10Fonbnk2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Mercuryo3.2/8Fonbnk3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Mercuryo8.3/18Fonbnk2.8/18
Mercuryo leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Mercuryo unless the term Fonbnk leads on is the one you are buying.
Fonbnk leads Mercuryo on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
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% (Mercuryo 6/10, Fonbnk 1/10)
Execution failure: you get a worse price, later, or nothing.
Scored by Is the number on the widget the number that settles? · 26% (Mercuryo 4/10, Fonbnk 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% (Mercuryo 5/10, Fonbnk 5/10)
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
Mercuryo scores 16 points above Fonbnk, led by purchase cost, quote honesty, and named licence. Published scores, out of 100: Mercuryo 57 (rank 7 of 16 onramps), Fonbnk 41 (rank 15 of 16).
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.
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 signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
