Mercuryo scores 16 points above Onmeta, led by purchase cost and named licence. Mercuryo ranks #7 and Onmeta #14 of 16 published onramps. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
MEMercuryo57
vs
OMOnmeta41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #7 and #14 of 16
Mercuryo scores 16 points above Onmeta, led by purchase cost and named licence.
MEMercuryo #7 of 1657
OMOnmeta #14 of 1641
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termMercuryo leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Onmeta on 1. The terms sum to the gap.
TermMercuryoOnmetaWeightPoints
Purchase cost5/101/108.2+8.5for Mercuryo+4.4 of 32
Named licence6/104/105.3+2.7for Mercuryo+1.4 of 32
KYC and speed5/106/104.3−1.1for Onmeta−0.6 of 32
AvailabilityScore dimension12620+15.6for Mercuryo
Net of the terms+25.7
Reproduced gap+25.7
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.OnmetaScore 41FIU-IND-registered Indian B2B onramp widget/API (Abhibha Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) running UPI, GCash and QRIS rails across India, the Philippines and Indonesia — with no published fee schedule anywhere on its surfaces and a terms-level 1% 'spillage' clause instead of a rate lock.Strength: Kyc friction time to coins — 6/10Watch-out: You cannot learn what a purchase costs before starting one — no fee schedule exists anywhere on Onmeta's surfaces, the widget quote at transaction time is the first number you ever see, and the terms you accept pre-waive chargebacks and pre-authorize a non-refundable shortfall of up to 1% ('spillage') on what actually arrives.
Quick facts
At a glance
1 of 3 rows read the same for both.
FactMercuryoOnmeta
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.No processing fee, spread or minimum is published. Onmeta widget FAQ (https://docs.onmeta.in/docs/widget/faq/), fetched 29 September 2026, HTTP 200: its "Pricing & Fees" section answers only "Gas fee varies from chain to chain. It is calculated using a combination of gas price and gas units needed to process the transaction." and, for the sell side, "We deduct TDS only for off-ramp transactions. TDS is 1% based on the latest ruling by the Government of India." The end-user terms (https://onmeta.in/terms-endusers-2) say only "You will be required to pay certain fees on each transaction you undertake on Onmeta. It will be reflected on the API while you undertake each transaction." The homepage routes pricing to "Schedule a Demo". No purchase can be priced from a published page.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshoteurope, us, caasia
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 Onmeta's 1/10 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.
OM
Onmeta
41#14 of 16
Pick it when
Pick Onmeta if KYC and speed matters most — it scores 6/10 to Mercuryo's 5/10 there (weight 18).
Strength
Kyc friction time to coins — 6/10
Tradeoff
You cannot learn what a purchase costs before starting one — no fee schedule exists anywhere on Onmeta's surfaces, the widget quote at transaction time is the first number you ever see, and the terms you accept pre-waive chargebacks and pre-authorize a non-refundable shortfall of up to 1% ('spillage') on what actually arrives.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
MEMercuryoLeads
Choose Mercuryo if purchase cost matters most
Purchase cost: 5/10 against 1/10 for Onmeta (weight 34)
Named licence: 6/10 against 4/10 for Onmeta (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.
OMOnmeta
Choose Onmeta if KYC and speed matters most
KYC and speed: 6/10 against 5/10 for Mercuryo (weight 18)
OnmetaScore 41FIU-IND-registered Indian B2B onramp widget/API (Abhibha Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) running UPI, GCash and QRIS rails across India, the Philippines and Indonesia — with no published fee schedule anywhere on its surfaces and a terms-level 1% 'spillage' clause instead of a rate lock.Strength: Kyc friction time to coins — 6/10Watch-out: You cannot learn what a purchase costs before starting one — no fee schedule exists anywhere on Onmeta's surfaces, the widget quote at transaction time is the first number you ever see, and the terms you accept pre-waive chargebacks and pre-authorize a non-refundable shortfall of up to 1% ('spillage') on what actually arrives.
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 4 of 10weight 8.2 of 86Mercuryo leads
Mercuryo5/10 out of 10
Onmeta1/10 out of 10
Quote honesty
weight 6.2 of 86Tie
Mercuryo4/10 out of 10
Onmeta4/10 out of 10
Named licence
by 2 of 10weight 5.3 of 86Mercuryo leads
Mercuryo6/10 out of 10
Onmeta4/10 out of 10
KYC and speed
by 1 of 10weight 4.3 of 86Onmeta leads
Mercuryo5/10 out of 10
Onmeta6/10 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
Mercuryo12/20Onmeta6/20
Mercuryo leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Mercuryo11.9/30Onmeta8/30
Mercuryo leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Mercuryo2.7/10Onmeta2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Mercuryo3.2/8Onmeta3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
Mercuryo8.3/18Onmeta8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Mercuryo unless the term Onmeta leads on is the one you are buying.
Pick Onmeta if KYC and speed matters most — it scores 6/10 to Mercuryo's 5/10 there (weight 18).
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, Onmeta 4/10)
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, Onmeta 4/10)
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, Onmeta 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
Mercuryo scores 16 points above Onmeta, led by purchase cost and named licence. Published scores, out of 100: Mercuryo 57 (rank 7 of 16 onramps), Onmeta 41 (rank 14 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