PAYONE vs Unzer

PAYONE

Cards appear only as a generic claim ("alle gängigen Bezahlverfahren, Kredit-/Debitkarten") while the two documented methods — SEPA Direct Debit and the full Klarna family — are properly detailed per country and currency, including refund behaviour. We found no public information naming Apple Pay, Google Pay, iDEAL, Bancontact or Wero, so a merchant cannot plan per-market coverage beyond those two.

Unzer

The captured pages name no payment method at all — no card scheme, no SEPA Direct Debit, no local method — only a POS offer where the merchant picks 'flexibly' which methods to accept. With no list of methods and nothing on the countries or currencies each covers, I cannot judge per-market coverage; the licence in the legal notice tells me nothing about what a customer in any given country can actually pay with.

PAYONE

Hosted checkout and server-to-server modes, webhooks, a test mode with documented test cases, and an exemption engine with real engineering in it: low-value exemptions with the 30€ and 100€ limits, acquirer transaction risk analysis, automatic soft-decline recovery, and liability spelled out. We found no public information on PCI scope per integration type (only a "Low PCI requirements" benefit), merchant-facing risk scores, or network tokens and account updater.

Unzer

The pricing page claims 'PSD2 - Starke Kundenauthentifizierung' and 'PCI DSS - Datensicherheit' and raises fraud protection as an FAQ question, which is more than silence on SCA and fraud. But the captured pages describe no checkout types, no 3-D Secure flow, no exemption handling and no PCI scope per integration type, so there is nothing here I could integrate or test against.

PAYONE

The SEPA mandate machinery is real — separate mandate creation, reuse of an existing mandate, a dedicated revocation endpoint, automatic revocation after 36 months, and a recurring mandate valid for an indefinite number of subsequent charges. We found no public information on subscription plans with scheduled charges, dunning or smart retries, and card-on-file is mentioned only in passing in the 3-D Secure context.

Unzer

We found no public information on stored payment methods, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic, retries, dunning or token export on any captured page. Nothing here evidences that the same customer can be charged twice without re-entering payment details.

PAYONE

The developer side is buildable — named payment endpoints, webhooks, documented status codes with a finality rule, and a test environment — but payouts are covered only by FAQ topic headings on timing, cycle changes and limits with no values stated. We found no public information on payout frequency or delay, per-transaction fee breakdowns, reconciliation exports that match bank lines, API versioning, idempotency or a public status page with incident history.

Unzer

A developer documentation section, a help centre and a platform status page are named among the support resources, and I want to credit a named status page. But the captured pages give no payout schedule, no per-transaction fee breakdown, no reconciliation reporting, and nothing on API versioning, idempotency keys, webhooks or a test mode — link names are not something finance can close a month on.

PAYONE

The legal notice names the entity, supervisor and licence type precisely — PAYONE GmbH, admitted and supervised by BaFin as an e-money institution — with commercial register and VAT details. The terms exist only as downloads whose contents are not captured, and we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or hold conditions, termination notice periods, or chargeback fees and a dispute process.

Unzer

The legal notice is unusually complete on the regulated side: Unzer E-Com GmbH is named as a BaFin-supervised payment institution with register number 122914, Unzer S.A. is listed with the Luxembourg supervisor under Z00000009, a Danish registration with FSA number 22006 is published, and complaint routes to BaFin and CSSF are given. We found no public information on the merchant-funds side — safeguarding of funds, reserves, freezes, termination notice, chargeback fees or a dispute process — so the bad-day terms stay unwritten in what I can see.

PAYONE

Contracting entity, licence and ownership are European — PAYONE GmbH in Frankfurt, BaFin-supervised, owned by Worldline of Paris and the German savings bank publishing group — and the privacy policy states all group companies sit within the EU/EEA with named subprocessors. We found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed and stored; the captured privacy pages cover website, chatbot and marketing data, not the payments platform.

Unzer

Contracting and regulated entities are European — Berlin, Heidelberg, Luxembourg, Vienna — and the EU online dispute platform is referenced. But we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data is processed or stored, or on a payment subprocessor list, while the captured privacy policy puts the website itself on a San Francisco host under a notice that the USA is not a safe third country, with US analytics tools running in the tag manager.

PAYONE

Plan fees are published plainly — "49,00 € einmalige Einrichtungsgebühr" with a "0,00 € monatliche Grundgebühr" for Starter, "ab 19,00 € pro Monat" for Pro — but the variable cost reads "0,99 € + Disagio" and "ab 0,09 € + Disagio" with the Disagio itself never quantified, so the effective fee cannot be computed. We found no public information on cross-border or currency conversion markups, or chargeback and payout fees; the payout FAQ raises limits and fees without stating values.

Unzer

The pricing page carries no figures at all — an 'All-in-One' package and an individual quote via contact form — so there is not even a headline rate, let alone cross-border, currency conversion or chargeback costs. Every rate is a sales conversation, which makes the effective fee for any merchant mix unknowable from public pages.