MoonPay scores 29 points above Fonbnk, led by purchase cost, quote honesty, and named licence. MoonPay ranks #3 and Fonbnk #15 of 16 published onramps. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
MoonPay70
vs
Fonbnk41
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #3 and #15 of 16
Criteria roundingThe criteria block is rounded to whole points before it is spread−0.1
Reproduced gap+41.6
Published gapAfter score rounding and bounds — see the note below7041+29.0
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.
MoonPayScore 70Highest-distribution consumer/embedded fiat-to-crypto rail with the pool's deepest numbered licence stack — but an 'up to 4.5%' card fee cap plus an unquantified spread means the €200 all-in is only knowable inside the widget.Strength: Licence identity — 9/10Watch-out: Every published rate is an 'up to' cap and the spread is acknowledged but never quantified against any benchmark — so the true all-in cost of a €200 card purchase (fee cap alone €9.00) is only discoverable inside the widget at quote time, and once accepted, 'All Orders are final and cannot be refunded.'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.
FactMoonPayFonbnk
PricingSnapshotMoonPay "Pricing Disclosure" for MoonPay Europe B.V. (https://www.moonpay.com/legal/europe_pricing_disclosure), fetched 29 September 2026, HTTP 200. MoonPay fee, buy side: Payment Cards & Alternative Payment Methods "Up to 4.5%"; Bank Transfers "Up to 1%"; PayPal "Up to 4.5%". Minimum: "A minimum MoonPay fee of €3.99 will be applied if your transaction amount is below a minimum threshold." Direct access: "If you access the MoonPay platform directly, the MoonPay fee will be in an amount between 0% and 5%." Partner-referred: "If you were referred to the MoonPay platform by a partner, your MoonPay fee will be in an amount up to 4.5%, subject to a minimum MoonPay fee that will never be more than €/£/$4.50." Partner ecosystem fee: "This ecosystem fee is set by each partner and may not exceed 10% but is typically between 0% and 2%." Spread: "For MoonPay Rails services, MoonPay Europe may include a spread in the asset price shown to you during your transaction." with no percentage; the base price comes from "reputable, independent third parties every 10 seconds", none named. Network fee: "The network fee covers the costs associated with the transfer of a Crypto-Asset and may vary depending on a number of factors, such as network congestion and operational costs." Worked example (our arithmetic, not a MoonPay figure): a EUR 200 card purchase carries a MoonPay fee of up to EUR 9.00 (4.5 percent cap); by bank transfer up to EUR 2.00 (1 percent cap), or the EUR 3.99 minimum if EUR 200 is below the unstated threshold; each before the unquantified spread, the network fee and any partner ecosystem fee. The "small conversion fee" sentence quoted in the 18 August 2026 note belongs to the page's virtual-account section, not to the onramp.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 fitSnapshotglobalafrica, latam, asia
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
MoonPay
70#3 of 16
Leads
Pick it when
Pick MoonPay if purchase cost matters most — it scores 6/10 to Fonbnk's 3/10 there (weight 34).
Strength
Licence identity — 9/10
Tradeoff
Every published rate is an 'up to' cap and the spread is acknowledged but never quantified against any benchmark — so the true all-in cost of a €200 card purchase (fee cap alone €9.00) is only discoverable inside the widget at quote time, and once accepted, 'All Orders are final and cannot be refunded.'
Fonbnk
41#15 of 16
Pick it when
Fonbnk leads MoonPay 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?
MoonPayLeads
Choose MoonPay if purchase cost matters most
Purchase cost: 6/10 against 3/10 for Fonbnk (weight 34)
Quote honesty: 5/10 against 2/10 for Fonbnk (weight 26)
Named licence: 9/10 against 1/10 for Fonbnk (weight 22)
MoonPayScore 70Highest-distribution consumer/embedded fiat-to-crypto rail with the pool's deepest numbered licence stack — but an 'up to 4.5%' card fee cap plus an unquantified spread means the €200 all-in is only knowable inside the widget.Strength: Licence identity — 9/10Watch-out: Every published rate is an 'up to' cap and the spread is acknowledged but never quantified against any benchmark — so the true all-in cost of a €200 card purchase (fee cap alone €9.00) is only discoverable inside the widget at quote time, and once accepted, 'All Orders are final and cannot be refunded.'
Fonbnk
Fonbnk leads MoonPay 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 3 of 10weight 8.2 of 86MoonPay leads
MoonPay6/10 out of 10
Fonbnk3/10 out of 10
Quote honesty
by 3 of 10weight 6.2 of 86MoonPay leads
MoonPay5/10 out of 10
Fonbnk2/10 out of 10
Named licence
by 8 of 10weight 5.3 of 86MoonPay leads
MoonPay9/10 out of 10
Fonbnk1/10 out of 10
KYC and speed
weight 4.3 of 86Tie
MoonPay5/10 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
MoonPay14/20Fonbnk12/20
MoonPay leads
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
MoonPay14.9/30Fonbnk6.4/30
MoonPay leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
MoonPay2.7/10Fonbnk2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
MoonPay3.2/8Fonbnk3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86
MoonPay8.3/18Fonbnk2.8/18
MoonPay leads
Decision rulePublished order
Choose MoonPay unless the term Fonbnk leads on is the one you are buying.
Fonbnk leads MoonPay 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% (MoonPay 9/10, 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% (MoonPay 5/10, 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% (MoonPay 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
MoonPay scores 29 points above Fonbnk, led by purchase cost, quote honesty, and named licence. Published scores, out of 100: MoonPay 70 (rank 3 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
