MoonPay excels at global reach and brand recognition because of its extensive direct integrations with major blockchains and wallets like Solana, Phantom, and OpenSea. For example, its coverage spans over 160 countries with 50+ local payment methods, processing billions in transaction volume annually. This scale provides a reliable, plug-and-play solution for protocols targeting a broad, mainstream audience.
MoonPay vs Mercuryo: Choosing the Right Fiat-to-Crypto Gateway
Introduction: The On-Ramp Infrastructure Decision
Choosing between MoonPay and Mercuryo is a foundational decision that impacts user acquisition costs, compliance overhead, and geographic reach.
Mercuryo takes a different approach by prioritizing cost-efficiency and flexible compliance in key emerging markets. This results in a trade-off between ubiquitous brand presence and potentially lower fees in regions like Eastern Europe and LATAM. Its API-first design and white-label solutions offer more customization for teams needing to embed fiat on-ramps deeply into their own UX without prominent third-party branding.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing user conversion with a trusted, turnkey solution across North America and Western Europe, choose MoonPay. If you prioritize controlling costs and tailoring the flow for specific regional corridors with a more integrated backend, choose Mercuryo.
TL;DR: Key Differentiators at a Glance
A data-driven breakdown of core strengths and trade-offs for enterprise integration decisions.
MoonPay: Global Scale & Brand Recognition
Market leader with 15M+ users and integrations in 160+ countries. This matters for consumer-facing dApps and NFT platforms requiring maximum user reach and trust. Their direct partnerships with major payment networks (Visa, Mastercard, Apple Pay) ensure high authorization rates and a familiar checkout experience.
MoonPay: Enterprise-Grade Compliance
Licensed or registered in over 45 jurisdictions, including key US states like New York (BitLicense). This matters for protocols operating in regulated markets (DeFi, institutional services) where legal due diligence is paramount. Their dedicated compliance API simplifies KYC/AML integration for high-volume applications.
Mercuryo: Cost-Effective for High Volume
Competitive, transparent fee structure often undercutting larger players, with volume-based discounts. This matters for wallet apps and exchanges processing high transaction volumes where fee optimization directly impacts unit economics and user retention. Supports fiat-to-crypto in 200+ countries.
Mercuryo: Developer-First Flexibility
Lightweight SDKs and a single API for both fiat on/off-ramps. This matters for engineering teams building multi-chain products (EVM, Solana, TON) who need a unified, fast-to-integrate solution without complex vendor management. Offers direct bank transfer options (SEPA, Faster Payments) key for European markets.
MoonPay: Premium NFT & Wallet Integrations
Deep, native integrations with top wallets (MetaMask, Phantom, Ledger Live) and NFT marketplaces (OpenSea, Magic Eden). This matters for projects where seamless, in-wallet purchasing is critical to conversion. Their 'NFT Checkout' widget is a turnkey solution for minting platforms.
Mercuryo: Speed to Market & Payouts
Faster integration cycle with streamlined documentation and responsive support. This matters for startups and agile teams launching MVPs. Faster fiat payout speeds (as quick as 1-2 business days) for merchant settlements, crucial for businesses managing cash flow from crypto sales.
MoonPay vs Mercuryo: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for crypto on-ramp providers.
| Metric | MoonPay | Mercuryo |
|---|---|---|
Supported Fiat Currencies | 130+ | 40+ |
Average Processing Fee | 4.5% | 3.95% |
Average Settlement Time | < 10 min | < 5 min |
Buy & Sell Functionality | ||
Crypto-to-Crypto Swaps | ||
Direct Bank Transfers (SEPA/SWIFT) | ||
NFT Checkout Integration | ||
Native Wallet Integration (e.g., MetaMask) |
MoonPay vs Mercuryo: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two leading fiat-to-crypto gateways. Choose based on your project's primary needs: global reach vs. cost efficiency.
MoonPay: Global Coverage & Brand Recognition
Specific advantage: Supports 150+ countries and 80+ fiat currencies, with deep integrations into major wallets like MetaMask and Phantom. This matters for consumer-facing dApps requiring maximum accessibility and trust from a recognized name in the space.
Mercuryo: Lower Fee Structure
Specific advantage: Typically offers lower transaction fees (often 1-2%) compared to MoonPay's standard rates. This matters for high-volume platforms or cost-sensitive users where minimizing the on-ramp premium is a primary competitive advantage.
MoonPay vs Mercuryo: Key Differentiators
A data-driven breakdown of strengths and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating on-ramp providers for Web3 applications.
MoonPay's Strength: Global Scale & Brand Recognition
Dominant market position: Processes billions in volume annually with integrations in major wallets like Trust Wallet and Phantom. This matters for consumer-facing dApps where user trust and familiarity are critical for conversion. Their extensive compliance infrastructure supports operations in 160+ countries.
MoonPay's Trade-off: Higher Cost Structure
Premium pricing: Transaction fees are typically higher than many competitors, often ranging from 1-4% plus network fees. This matters for high-frequency traders or cost-sensitive DeFi protocols where margins are thin. The cost reflects their extensive compliance, marketing, and support overhead.
Mercuryo's Strength: Competitive Fees & Crypto-Native Focus
Aggressive fee model: Often offers lower transaction fees (starting from ~1%) and favorable rates for direct crypto purchases. This matters for crypto-native platforms and exchanges looking to minimize user acquisition cost. Strong focus on B2B2C API solutions for seamless Web3 integration.
Mercuryo's Trade-off: Limited Geographic Reach
Regional restrictions: While growing, licensed coverage is not as extensive as the largest players, with notable gaps in some key US states and jurisdictions. This matters for globally scaling applications that require uniform service availability. Users in unsupported regions face blocked transactions.
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which
MoonPay for Developers
Verdict: Superior for seamless, branded on-ramps into complex dApps. Strengths: Offers the most comprehensive SDK and widget suite (Buy, Sell, On/Off Ramps) for deep integration. Provides NFT checkout and cross-chain swap capabilities directly in the flow. Features a robust KYC Connect API for programmatic compliance. Supports a wider range of alternative payment methods (APMs) like Google Pay and Apple Pay for user flexibility. Considerations: Integration is more involved than a simple link. Pricing is typically higher, making it better suited for high-value transactions where UX is paramount.
Mercuryo for Developers
Verdict: Ideal for fast, lightweight integration with a link-based model. Strengths: The widget and direct link model allows for deployment in minutes with minimal code. Offers a straightforward API for fiat-to-crypto conversions. Generally provides lower fees for standard buy/sell operations, appealing to cost-sensitive applications. Supports a solid base of payment methods and currencies. Considerations: Less customizable than MoonPay's full SDK. Lacks some of the advanced features like native NFT checkout, making it more of a pure payment rail than a full-stack Web3 onboarding solution.
Final Verdict and Recommendation
Choosing between MoonPay and Mercuryo hinges on your application's core priorities: seamless user experience or global coverage and cost.
MoonPay excels at providing a polished, developer-friendly on-ramp experience because of its deep integration with major wallets and dApps. Its robust SDKs and extensive documentation, used by platforms like OpenSea and Trust Wallet, allow for rapid deployment. For example, its Checkout product boasts a 95%+ transaction success rate, a critical metric for user retention and conversion.
Mercuryo takes a different approach by prioritizing global accessibility and competitive fees. This results in superior coverage in emerging markets and often lower transaction costs for end-users. However, its user interface can be less streamlined than MoonPay's, representing a trade-off between reach and polish. Mercuryo supports over 170 countries and 50+ fiat currencies, a significant advantage for projects targeting a worldwide audience.
The key trade-off: If your priority is maximizing user conversion with a seamless, branded flow and you serve primarily established crypto markets, choose MoonPay. If you prioritize global user acquisition, cost-effective transactions, and support for a vast array of fiat options, choose Mercuryo.
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.