Wyre excels at deep, programmatic integration and high-volume B2B services because of its robust API-first architecture and focus on enterprise clients. For example, its direct integration with MetaMask and partnerships with platforms like Yearn Finance demonstrate its strength in enabling seamless, embedded finance experiences. Its historical focus on complex compliance and settlement logic makes it a strong choice for protocols building sophisticated on-ramp flows directly into their dApps.
LABS
Comparisons
Wyre vs MoonPay: Fiat On-Ramp API Technical Comparison
A data-driven analysis for CTOs and engineering leads choosing a fiat on-ramp provider. We compare Wyre and MoonPay on geographical coverage, KYC flow optimization, fee structures, and API reliability to inform your integration decision.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Strategic On-Ramp Decision
Choosing a fiat-to-crypto on-ramp is a foundational infrastructure decision impacting user acquisition, compliance, and revenue.
MoonPay takes a different approach by prioritizing a polished, consumer-friendly front-end experience and extensive global coverage. This strategy results in a turnkey solution with a higher fee structure but significantly lower integration complexity. Its widget is ubiquitous across leading NFT marketplaces like OpenSea and Magic Eden, and it supports over 80 fiat currencies and numerous local payment methods, making it the go-to for maximizing user reach and conversion.
The key trade-off: If your priority is deep technical control, custom pricing models, and serving high-volume institutional flows, choose Wyre. If you prioritize rapid deployment, a superior end-user UX, and maximizing global consumer accessibility with a turnkey solution, choose MoonPay. The decision hinges on whether you are building the financial rails (Wyre) or optimizing for the end-user's first click (MoonPay).
tldr-summary
WYRE VS MOONPAY
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
Direct comparison of two leading fiat-to-crypto on-ramp providers, highlighting core architectural and business model differences.
02
Wyre: Lower Fees for High-Volume
Volume-based pricing: Fees can drop below 1% for enterprise clients with significant transaction volume. This matters for exchanges, custodians, and institutional platforms where basis points directly impact profitability.
04
MoonPay: Superior UX & Conversion
Optimized checkout flow: Single, intuitive widget with pre-built KYC, real-time quotes, and multi-asset support. This matters for retail-focused products where minimizing user drop-off is critical for conversion rates.
05
Wyre: Deep Liquidity for Stablecoins
Specialized market making: Strong liquidity provisioning for USDC, USDT, and DAI via direct partnerships. This matters for DeFi protocols and trading platforms that require large, low-slippage stablecoin purchases.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Wyre vs MoonPay: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for enterprise on-ramp solutions.
| Metric | Wyre | MoonPay |
|---|---|---|
Supported Fiat Currencies | 50+ | 80+ |
Average Processing Fee | 2.9% + $0.30 | 1% - 4.5% |
Average Settlement Time | 0-3 business days | Instant - 3 business days |
Direct Bank Transfers (ACH/SEPA) | ||
Credit/Debit Card Support | ||
Crypto-to-Crypto Swaps | ||
NFT Checkout Integration | ||
Mainnet Launch Year | 2013 | 2018 |
pros-cons-a
Fiat On-Ramp Comparison
Wyre vs MoonPay: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two major payment infrastructure providers. Data based on public API docs, fee schedules, and market analysis.
01
Wyre: Deep Wallet Integration
Direct custody and transfer APIs: Wyre's infrastructure allows for direct, programmatic transfers to user wallets (e.g., MetaMask, Phantom) without manual address entry. This enables superior UX for embedded flows in dApps like DeFi protocols and NFT marketplaces.
02
Wyre: Lower Volume Fees
Competitive enterprise pricing: For high-volume partners processing over $1M monthly, Wyre's negotiated fees can be more aggressive. This matters for large-scale exchanges and custodians where basis points directly impact profitability.
03
MoonPay: Unmatched Global Coverage
Broad payment method support: Supports 80+ fiat currencies, local bank transfers (SEPA, FPS), and regional options like iDEAL and PIX. Geographic reach exceeds 160+ countries, crucial for consumer-facing apps targeting international users.
04
MoonPay: Superior UX & Brand Trust
Polished checkout widget and high approval rates: MoonPay's optimized flow and strong compliance reputation lead to higher conversion. Used by top-tier platforms like OpenSea and Ledger Live. This matters for retail-focused products where drop-off is critical.
05
Wyre: Complex Integration
Steeper technical lift: While powerful, Wyre's API-first model requires more development resources for KYC orchestration and wallet management compared to MoonPay's plug-and-play widget. A trade-off for teams with limited engineering bandwidth.
06
MoonPay: Higher Retail Fees
Premium for convenience: Standard transaction fees are typically 1-4.5%, higher than Wyre's baseline for equivalent services. This impacts applications with price-sensitive users or thin-margin business models.
pros-cons-b
KEY DIFFERENTIATORS
Wyre vs MoonPay: Pros and Cons
A data-driven comparison of two major fiat-to-crypto onramps, highlighting their core strengths and trade-offs for integration.
01
Wyre's Core Strength: Deep Liquidity & API-First
High-volume, programmatic access: Wyre's API-first model is built for developers needing direct, high-throughput fiat processing. It offers deep liquidity pools, making it a preferred backend for major wallets like MetaMask and exchanges. This matters for enterprise-scale applications where custom UX and direct settlement are critical.
02
Wyre's Trade-off: Geographic & Product Focus
Narrower regional coverage: Historically strong in the US, but availability in Europe and other regions is more limited compared to MoonPay. Post-2023 restructuring, its product suite is more focused on core API services rather than a broad consumer-facing widget. This matters for global consumer apps needing a turnkey solution with wide local payment method support.
03
MoonPay's Core Strength: Global Reach & Turnkey UX
Broadest geographic coverage: Supports 160+ countries with 50+ local payment methods, including credit/debit cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, and local bank transfers. Its widget-first approach provides a polished, compliant checkout flow out-of-the-box. This matters for consumer-facing dApps and NFT platforms prioritizing user acquisition and a seamless onboarding experience globally.
04
MoonPay's Trade-off: Less Customization & Higher Fees
Widget-centric model: While easy to integrate, it offers less flexibility for deep, custom UX integration compared to Wyre's raw API. Fee structure is typically higher for end-users, especially for card purchases, which can impact conversion rates. This matters for highly branded applications or protocols where controlling the entire user journey and minimizing cost per acquisition are paramount.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: Choose Based on Your Use Case
Wyre for Developers
Verdict: The legacy API-first choice for programmatic integration, but sunsetting. Strengths: Wyre's core offering was a robust, developer-centric REST API for fiat-to-crypto onramps. It provided granular control for embedding checkout flows directly into dApps and wallets. Its widget was highly customizable, and its API allowed for complex operations like creating payment methods and managing transfers. For years, it was the go-to for projects needing a white-label solution. Critical Note: Wyre announced its wind-down in 2023. While some services may remain through partners, new integrations should not be built on Wyre. Existing developers must prioritize migration.
MoonPay for Developers
Verdict: The modern, full-stack alternative with superior global reach and ongoing support.
Strengths: MoonPay offers a comprehensive SDK and Widget suite (@moonpay/moonpay-web3-sdk) that is actively maintained. It supports a wider range of payment methods (credit/debit cards, bank transfers, Apple Pay, Google Pay) and currencies (fiat & crypto) globally. Its HyperMint service provides a turnkey solution for NFT minting and checkout. For developers, the documentation is extensive, and the platform provides clear analytics and compliance tooling. It's the definitive choice for any new Web3 project requiring reliable, scalable fiat infrastructure.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Recommendation
A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between two leading fiat-to-crypto on-ramp providers.
Wyre excels at high-volume, programmatic integration because of its robust API-first architecture and deep liquidity pools. For example, its direct integration with major DeFi protocols like MetaMask and Yearn Finance allows for seamless, automated transactions, historically supporting enterprise-scale operations before its 2023 acquisition and strategic pivot. Its model is built for developers needing to embed complex financial rails.
MoonPay takes a different approach by prioritizing user experience and global accessibility. This results in a trade-off between customization and reach. MoonPay's widget-based solution offers a turnkey, consumer-friendly interface supporting over 80 fiat currencies and payment methods like Apple Pay, leading to its widespread adoption by top-tier NFT marketplaces and wallets. Its strength is in converting mainstream users with minimal friction.
The key trade-off: If your priority is developer control, high-throughput API calls, and deep integration into a DeFi or wallet stack, Wyre's infrastructure (now under new ownership) remains a powerful choice. If you prioritize maximizing end-user conversion rates, supporting a vast array of local payment methods, and a quick, branded integration for retail-facing apps, MoonPay is the definitive market leader. For most consumer applications today, MoonPay's reach and polish deliver superior business results.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall