Utrust excels at providing a simple, merchant-friendly gateway for mainstream crypto adoption by abstracting away blockchain complexity. It offers instant settlement in fiat or stablecoins, shielding merchants from volatility, and supports a wide array of major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Polygon. For example, its partnership with major e-commerce platforms like Shopify and WooCommerce demonstrates its focus on ease of integration for existing online stores, aiming to capture the broad SMB market.
LABS
Comparisons
Utrust vs PumaPay: A Technical Comparison for Merchant Payment Processing
An in-depth analysis of Utrust and PumaPay, focusing on their core architectures for smart contract-based payments, recurring billing models, buyer protection mechanisms, and settlement finality for technical decision-makers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Battle for Blockchain-Powered Commerce
A head-to-head comparison of Utrust and PumaPay, two leading platforms integrating crypto payments for merchants, highlighting their distinct architectural philosophies and target markets.
PumaPay takes a fundamentally different approach by building its protocol around recurring billing and subscription models via its proprietary PullPayment protocol. This architecture allows merchants to pull funds from customer wallets according to pre-authorized agreements, a critical feature for SaaS, streaming, and utility services. This results in a trade-off: while enabling complex billing logic native to the blockchain, it requires deeper technical integration and a focus on its native PMA token for fee settlement, potentially limiting its appeal to a more niche, crypto-native audience.
The key trade-off: If your priority is low-friction integration for one-time e-commerce transactions with volatility protection and broad coin support, choose Utrust. If you prioritize building sophisticated, blockchain-native recurring revenue models and are willing to manage token economics, choose PumaPay.
tldr-summary
UTrust vs PumaPay
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for enterprise payment integration.
01
UTrust: Enterprise-Grade Compliance
Regulatory-first approach: Built-in KYC/AML and merchant protection guarantees. This matters for regulated industries like e-commerce and B2B services where compliance is non-negotiable. Integrates with major platforms like Shopify and WooCommerce.
02
UTrust: Fiat Settlement Simplicity
Automatic fiat conversion: Merchants receive payments in their local currency (EUR, USD, GBP) without managing crypto volatility. This matters for traditional businesses seeking to accept crypto without operational overhead. Supports SEPA and SWIFT payouts.
03
PumaPay: Flexible Billing Architectures
PullPayment protocol: Enables complex recurring, pay-per-use, and subscription models directly on-chain. This matters for SaaS, content platforms, and utilities needing automated, permissioned billing cycles. Integrates with Ethereum and Polygon.
04
PumaPay: On-Chain Payment Logic
Smart contract-based flexibility: Developers can program custom payment rules (e.g., tiered pricing, conditional releases). This matters for decentralized applications (dApps) and Web3 services requiring non-custodial, programmable payment flows.
UTRUSTRUST VS PUMAPAY COMPARISON
Head-to-Head Feature Matrix
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for crypto payment processors.
| Metric | Utrust | PumaPay |
|---|---|---|
Primary Payment Model | Merchant Settlement | PullPayment Protocol |
Supported Currencies | BTC, ETH, UTRUST, 10+ | ETH, USDT, USDC, PMA |
Transaction Fee (Merchant) | 1% | 0.5% - 1% + gas |
Settlement to Fiat | ||
Chargeback Protection | ||
Recurring Billing Native Support | ||
Mainnet Launch | 2017 | 2018 |
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose Utrust vs. PumaPay
Utrust for E-commerce
Verdict: The clear choice for mainstream online retail. Strengths: Utrust is a dedicated crypto payment gateway designed for merchant adoption. It offers fiat settlement (to EUR, USD, GBP), chargeback protection, and a user-friendly merchant dashboard. It supports a wide range of tokens (BTC, ETH, UTRUST) and provides a simple API/SDK for integration with platforms like Shopify, WooCommerce, and Magento. The focus is on reducing fraud and providing price stability for merchants.
PumaPay for E-commerce
Verdict: Niche fit for subscription and recurring billing models. Strengths: PumaPay's core innovation is its PullPayment Protocol, which reverses the transaction flow. Instead of customers initiating payments, merchants can "pull" funds from a pre-authorized wallet. This is ideal for subscription services, utility bills, or pay-per-use models (e.g., streaming, SaaS). However, it requires more technical integration and consumer education compared to a standard gateway like Utrust.
pros-cons-a
PAYMENT GATEWAY COMPARISON
Utrust vs PumaPay: Pros and Cons
A data-driven breakdown of two crypto payment processors. Utrust focuses on merchant-friendly fiat settlements, while PumaPay specializes in recurring billing via pull payments.
01
Utrust Pro: Merchant-First Settlement
Instant fiat conversion: Merchants receive settlements in EUR, USD, or GBP, not volatile crypto. This matters for businesses with traditional accounting and cash flow needs. Supports major currencies and direct bank payouts.
02
Utrust Con: Limited Blockchain Support
Primarily Ethereum & Polygon: While supporting major assets like ETH, USDT, and Utrust's UTK token, its chain support is narrower than some competitors. This matters for merchants wanting to accept payments on Solana, BNB Chain, or other high-throughput networks.
03
PumaPay Pro: Recurring Billing Engine
PullPayment Protocol: Enables subscription models and recurring charges directly on-chain, a feature most payment gateways lack. This matters for SaaS, streaming, and utility services needing automated crypto billing. Integrates with existing payment rails.
04
PumaPay Con: Token Dependency & Complexity
Relies on PMA token: The ecosystem's utility and fee model are tied to its native token, adding complexity for merchants and users. This matters for businesses seeking a simple, agnostic solution that accepts any major cryptocurrency without extra token steps.
pros-cons-b
UTRUSTR VS. PUMA PAY
PumaPay: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for two crypto payment processors at a glance.
01
UTRUST: Strength - Merchant Protection
Chargeback protection and dispute resolution: UTRUST's core value proposition is protecting merchants from fraud and payment reversals, a major pain point in crypto. This matters for high-value e-commerce and businesses with high fraud risk.
02
UTRUST: Strength - Multi-Currency Simplicity
Single integration for 30+ cryptocurrencies: Merchants receive settlements in their preferred currency (crypto or fiat) regardless of what the customer pays with. This matters for global businesses seeking to maximize customer payment options without operational complexity.
03
PUMA PAY: Strength - Flexible Payment Models
PullPayment protocol for recurring/subscription billing: PumaPay's on-chain protocol enables complex payment logic like recurring charges, pay-per-use, and shared payments. This matters for SaaS platforms, content subscriptions, and service-based businesses needing automated crypto billing.
04
PUMA PAY: Strength - On-Chain Efficiency
Lower fees via direct blockchain settlement: By operating primarily as a protocol layer, PumaPay can offer lower transaction fees compared to custodial aggregators. This matters for high-volume merchants and cost-sensitive applications where fee structure directly impacts margins.
05
UTRUST: Weakness - Centralized Custody
Custodial model introduces counterparty risk: Funds are held by UTRUST during transactions. This matters for decentralization-purist projects and protocols that require non-custodial or self-hosted wallet solutions.
06
PUMA PAY: Weakness - Merchant Risk & Complexity
No built-in fraud protection: The protocol's flexibility shifts chargeback and fraud prevention responsibility to the merchant. This matters for businesses without dedicated risk teams or those in highly regulated industries requiring compliance guarantees.
BLOCKCHAIN INFRASTRUCTURE
Technical Deep Dive: Architecture and Settlement
A technical comparison of Utrust and PumaPay's core architectures, consensus mechanisms, and settlement guarantees for payment processing.
Yes, Utrust is significantly faster for final settlement. Utrust settles transactions on-chain within seconds on networks like Polygon or Avalanche, leveraging their high throughput. PumaPay, while offering instant authorization, often uses a pull-payment model on Ethereum, where final settlement is subject to slower block times and higher congestion, delaying merchant fund availability. For true real-time finality, Utrust's Layer-2 and sidechain approach provides a clear speed advantage.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
A direct comparison of Utrust's merchant-first payment gateway versus PumaPay's subscription-focused smart contract protocol.
Utrust excels at providing a seamless, compliant payment gateway for mainstream e-commerce merchants. Its core strength is abstracting blockchain complexity, offering instant fiat settlement, built-in fraud protection, and support for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Utrust's native UTK. For example, its integration with platforms like Shopify and WooCommerce allows merchants to accept crypto with a few clicks, handling volatility and compliance automatically. This makes it ideal for businesses seeking a 'plug-and-play' solution similar to Stripe or PayPal, but for crypto.
PumaPay takes a fundamentally different approach by focusing on recurring billing and subscription models through its proprietary PullPayment Protocol. This on-chain solution uses smart contracts to enable businesses to "pull" funds from customer wallets for authorized recurring payments, a function not natively supported by most blockchains. This results in a trade-off: while it offers powerful automation for SaaS, streaming, and utility services, it requires deeper technical integration and places more onus on the business to manage customer onboarding and smart contract interactions on the Ethereum and Polygon networks.
The key trade-off: If your priority is simplicity and rapid merchant adoption with minimal technical overhead, choose Utrust. Its gateway model, fiat settlement, and e-commerce plugin ecosystem provide the fastest path to accepting crypto payments. If you prioritize automating complex, recurring billing cycles and require a decentralized, on-chain payment architecture, choose PumaPay. Its PullPayment Protocol is a specialized tool for subscription-based businesses willing to handle a more involved integration process.
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