Payment
Adyen
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Adyen N.V. · www.adyen.com
Compare with Stripe → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Adyen's public pages support a card-and-local-method acquiring story and little beyond it. Payment methods is the strongest area at 5-6: the pricing page names iDEAL for the Netherlands, SEPA Direct Debit across eight countries, Klarna across eight markets and Visa and Mastercard globally, though giropay and Sofort are marked no longer available and we found no public information on Bancontact, BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24 or EPS. The weakest areas are checkout and SCA at 2-3 and recurring billing at 0-2, where judges differ on how much raw debit pricing counts: we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, hosted versus embedded checkout, PCI DSS scope, stored credentials, mandates or dunning. Settlement and reconciliation scores cluster at 3-4 on merchant-chosen payout timing and currency, named reconciliation services and 8% per annum interest on settlements delayed more than thirty days through Adyen's misconduct, though we found no public information on payout delay, webhooks or a test mode. Licence and account terms score a uniform 4; sovereignty splits 2-3 because residency, ownership and subprocessors are unknown on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- Payment methods are listed per market — iDEAL for the Netherlands, SEPA Direct Debit across eight named countries, Visa and Mastercard globally — with per-method fees published, scoring 5-6
- The merchant chooses payout timing and currency, with reconciliation services defined in the terms — settlement and reconciliation scores 3-4
- Interest of 8% per annum is due from Adyen on settlements delayed more than thirty days through its own misconduct
- The imprint names Adyen N.V. at Simon Carmiggeltstraat 6, 1011 DJ, Amsterdam, with Dutch Chamber of Commerce number 34259528 and VAT ID NL817154243B01
- The terms give three months' written notice before discontinuing a payment method and define partial refunds
Held against it
- We found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, hosted versus embedded checkout or PCI DSS scope — checkout and SCA scores 2-3
- We found no public information on stored credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, mandate handling, dunning or token export — recurring billing scores 0-2
- The homepage claims bank licences in the USA, UK and EU, and we found no public information on the supervisor or register number; the chargeback fee is charged at an unstated amount
- Giropay and Sofort are marked no longer available, and we found no public information on Bancontact, BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS or Wero
- Sovereignty scores 2-3: we found no public information on data residency, ownership or subprocessors
Best for
- You sell mainly into the Netherlands, Belgium or the Nordics and can plan acceptance from a published per-market method list
- You want to choose your own payout timing and currency and need reconciliation defined in the acquiring terms
- You take one-off card and wallet transactions and want preset fraud rules you can adjust yourself in the Customer Area
Avoid if
- You run a subscription business — recurring billing scored 0-2 and we found no public information on mandates, dunning or taking stored credentials to another provider
- Your checkout depends on German local methods — giropay and Sofort are marked no longer available
- You need 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling and PCI DSS scope documented before integrating — checkout and SCA scored 2-3
- Your procurement requires evidenced data residency or a subprocessor list — sovereignty scored 2-3 and both are unknown on the captured pages
The scores
Payment methods & local coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which methods a European customer can actually pay with — cards and wallets, SEPA Direct Debit, and the local methods that decide conversion per country — judged on the named list per market rather than on a method count.
0 — Cards only, or a method list with no statement of which countries and currencies each one covers.
3 — Major cards and wallets plus one or two European methods, with local coverage stated vaguely ("many local methods") and no SEPA Direct Debit.
5 — Cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay, SEPA Direct Debit, and the main local methods for DACH and Benelux (iDEAL or Wero, Bancontact, Klarna or invoice) listed by name with the countries they serve.
8 — Broad EU coverage named per country — including methods such as BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS and Wero — multi-currency acceptance with settlement currencies stated, and which methods support refunds and recurring charges documented per method.
10 — Coverage is documented as a matrix a merchant can plan against: every method with its countries, currencies, refund, partial-capture and recurring support, and the provider's own acquiring versus third-party routing stated per method.
The Finance Lead
Visa, Mastercard, Apple Pay, Google Pay, SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL and Klarna are each named with the countries they serve, which is the list I can plan acceptance against. Beyond that it thins out: we found no public information on Bancontact or the Polish, Swiss and Austrian methods, and no refund or recurring support documented per method. 2 5
The E-Commerce Lead
Visa, Mastercard, Apple Pay and Google Pay are named with their regions, SEPA Direct Debit names eight countries individually, and iDEAL, Klarna across eight regions, Swish for Sweden and BACS for the UK are priced with their markets — enough to plan Benelux and the Nordics. My German and Polish carts get nothing: giropay and Sofort are shown as no longer available, and I found no public information on Bancontact, EPS, BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24 or Wero, nor on which methods take refunds or recurring charges. A single-integration claim plus a methods-overview link is a pointer, not the per-country matrix I plan against. 2
The SaaS Founder
The pricing page names methods with their countries — SEPA Direct Debit at €0.11 + € 0.27 across eight named countries, iDEAL for the Netherlands, Klarna across eight markets, Visa and Mastercard globally, plus Swish, BACS and Alipay — which is the listing level I need for conversion planning. We found no public information on methods such as BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS, Wero or Bancontact, no settlement currency list, and no per-method statement of refund and recurring support; giropay and Sofort are marked no longer available, which leaves DACH on SEPA. 2 5
The Payments Engineer
Cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL and Klarna are each named with the countries they serve, plus a decent tail of Swish, BACS, PayPal and Alipay — a list I could actually wire into a country picker, though the German local methods Giropay and Sofort are marked no longer available. We found no Bancontact, BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS or Wero in the captured list, and no public information on refund or recurring support per method or on which methods run on the provider's own acquiring versus third-party routing. 2 5
The Compliance Officer
The pricing page names methods per market — iDEAL for the Netherlands, SEPA Direct Debit across eight named countries, Klarna with its country list, plus cards and wallets — and the terms confirm partial refunds, though not per method. We found no public information on Bancontact, BLIK, TWINT, EPS or Wero, or on which methods support recurring charges, and both Giropay and Sofort are marked no longer available for Germany. 2 5
The Skeptic
Cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay are priced globally, iDEAL and SEPA Direct Debit each carry named countries, and Klarna, Swish, BACS and ACH are listed per market — but Germany's local methods show only as discontinued (Sofort, Giropay), we found no public information on Bancontact, Wero, BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24 or EPS, and no per-method statement of refunds or recurring support. 2 5
Checkout, SCA & fraud
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The path from basket to authorised payment under PSD2: hosted and embedded checkout options, 3-D Secure and SCA exemption handling, fraud screening, and what the provider documents about keeping legitimate payments from failing.
0 — A single redirect page with no statement on 3-D Secure, SCA or fraud screening.
3 — Hosted checkout with 3-D Secure 2 mentioned, fraud screening as an unexplained add-on, and no word on exemptions or declined-payment handling.
5 — Hosted and embedded checkout options, 3-D Secure 2 with SCA handled by the provider, configurable fraud rules, and the resulting PCI DSS scope for each integration type stated.
8 — SCA exemptions (low value, transaction risk analysis, merchant-initiated) applied and documented, fraud tooling with rules and risk scores exposed to the merchant, network tokens or account updater, and liability shift explained per flow.
10 — Authorisation is engineered and shown: exemption strategy documented, soft-decline retry handled, authorisation-rate reporting by method and issuer country, and a checkout the merchant can run in their own domain while staying at the lowest PCI scope.
The Finance Lead
Fraud screening is more than a throwaway — preset rules assigned at onboarding, adjustable in the Customer Area, with extended services purchasable. But we found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout options, 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling or PCI scope, so the authorisation path under PSD2 is invisible to a buyer. 2 5
The E-Commerce Lead
The terms describe fraud screening with preset rules assigned at onboarding and adjustable in the Customer Area, plus purchasable extended fraud services — and that is all I can see. I found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout options, 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, PCI scope or declined-payment handling, so I cannot judge whether the challenge fires only when it must or whether checkout stays on my domain. 5 3
The SaaS Founder
Fraud screening is real and configurable — a preset risk profile assigned at onboarding, rules adjustable in the Customer Area, extended services purchasable — but we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or PCI DSS scope. For a business living on authorisation rates, that silence is expensive. 5 3
The Payments Engineer
Fraud screening is real and configurable — a preset risk profile at onboarding, adjustable rules in the Customer Area, extended services for sale — and authorisation without capture with funds holds is spelled out in the terms. But we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or the PCI DSS scope of each integration, which is exactly what I need before putting a payment form anywhere. 2 5
The Compliance Officer
Fraud screening is described in the terms — a preset risk profile with rules adjustable in the Customer Area and paid extended controls — which is more than an unexplained add-on. But we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or PCI DSS scope for any integration. 2 5
The Skeptic
The terms assign preset fraud rules at onboarding and let the merchant adjust them in the Customer Area, and one integration is said to cover all methods — but we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or PCI DSS scope, which leaves the path from basket to authorised payment essentially undocumented. 5 2
Subscriptions & recurring payments
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Charging the same customer again: card-on-file and merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandates, subscription logic and dunning — and whether the stored payment credentials can leave with the merchant.
0 — No stored payment methods; every charge needs the customer to pay again.
3 — Card-on-file tokens for repeat charges, but no SEPA mandate handling, no subscription logic, and failed-payment handling left entirely to the merchant.
5 — Stored cards and SEPA Direct Debit mandates, merchant-initiated transactions documented, and basic subscription plans with scheduled charges and failed-payment notifications.
8 — Subscription billing with trials, proration and plan changes, smart retries and dunning, card account updater, mandate management with pre-notification, and a documented process for exporting payment tokens to another provider.
10 — Recurring revenue is a first-class product: usage-based and invoice-based billing, dunning with measurable recovery, token migration in and out documented with a stated timeline and format, and recurring support stated for every local method that allows it.
The Finance Lead
SEPA Direct Debit is a priced method with eight countries named, but we found no public information on stored credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, mandate management, subscription plans, dunning, or token export. From a finance seat, nothing here evidences that a subscription business can run on this platform. 2 5
The E-Commerce Lead
Every stored-credential question I care about — card-on-file and merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, retries, dunning and token export — returns nothing on the captured pages. The method pricing carries no recurring flags either, so I must score this as if none of it exists. 5 2
The SaaS Founder
SEPA Direct Debit and BACS Direct Debit are priced as supported methods, the raw material of European recurring revenue, but I found no public information on mandate management with pre-notification, merchant-initiated transactions, subscription logic, trials, proration, dunning, retries, or any documented process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. When failed renewals are churn nobody chose, the absence of dunning and token-exit documentation is the deal-shaping gap. 2 5
The Payments Engineer
SEPA Direct Debit is priced and listed by country, so the raw material for mandates exists, but we found no public information on stored payment credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, subscription plans, dunning or a process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. The captured terms describe reversals and authorisation holds but say nothing about charging the same customer twice. 2 5
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on stored credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, subscription logic, dunning, or portability of stored payment details; the only adjacent facts are a listed SEPA Direct Debit method fee and a general note that some methods allow authorisation without immediate capture. With nothing documented on mandate or repeat-charge handling, a merchant cannot plan recurring revenue from these pages. 2 5
The Skeptic
SEPA, BACS and ACH Direct Debit are priced as methods and the terms allow an authorisation with a hold, so debit-based repeat charges are possible in principle — but we found no public information on card-on-file tokens, mandate handling, subscription logic, retries, dunning, or taking stored credentials to another provider. 2 5
Settlement, reconciliation & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the money and knowing what it was: payout cadence and currencies, fee itemisation per transaction, reports that match a bank statement, and an API and webhooks a team can build finance processes on.
0 — Payouts on an unstated schedule, one net amount per payout, and no API or report beyond an on-screen list.
3 — A stated payout schedule and CSV exports, but fees netted invisibly into payouts and an API with thin documentation.
5 — Payout frequency and delay stated, per-transaction fee breakdown in reports, a documented REST API with webhooks and a test mode, and exports that link each payout to its transactions.
8 — Configurable payout schedules and settlement currencies, reconciliation reports that match bank lines, accounting integrations or exports named, a versioned API with idempotency and published rate limits, and a public status page with incident history.
10 — Finance can close the month from the provider's data: interchange and scheme fees itemised per transaction, automated reconciliation to the ledger, a deprecation policy for the API, and full historical data exportable after the contract ends.
The Finance Lead
Payout timing and currency are the merchant's choice, reconciliation services are named in the terms, and the Customer Area generates reports and notifications, which lifts this above a netted lump. Still, we found no public information on a stated payout delay, per-transaction fee itemisation in reports, webhooks, a test mode, or exports linking each payout to its transactions, and the API is described in a single line. 2 5
The E-Commerce Lead
Payout timing and currency are the merchant's choice, reconciliation is a named service, the Customer Area produces transaction reports and notifications, and a 99.999 percent historical uptime is published. I found no public information on payout frequency or delay, per-transaction fee breakdowns in reports, webhooks, a test mode, or exports that tie each payout to its transactions — my finance team could not build a month-end close on what is public. 2 5 1
The SaaS Founder
Payout timing and currency are in the merchant's hands — "Wählen Sie selbst, wann und in welcher Währung die Zahlungsabwicklung erfolgt" — the terms define reconciliation of processed transactions against settlements, and the Customer Area generates reports and notifications. We found no public information on payout frequency or delay, per-transaction fee itemisation, webhooks, a test mode, or a public status page; the API is described only as a secured connection between the sales channel and the platform. 2 5
The Payments Engineer
Payout timing and currency are merchant-chosen, the terms define reconciliation services against acquirer and scheme settlements, a reporting portal is named, and 8% per annum interest is committed on settlements delayed more than thirty days — that is a settlement story, not a netted dump. But the API is defined in the terms only as a direct secured internet connection: we found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, test mode, versioning, idempotency or a public status page with incident history, and the 99.999% uptime figure on the homepage is a marketing claim, not an incident log I can subscribe to. 1 2 5
The Compliance Officer
Payouts are flexible — the merchant chooses timing and currency — and the terms define reconciliation services matching processed transactions to settlements, with interest owed by Adyen if settlement slips past thirty days through its own fault. However, we found no public information on webhooks, a test mode, per-transaction fee itemisation in reports, or exports that tie each payout to its transactions. 2 5
The Skeptic
Payout timing and currency are the merchant's choice, reconciliation and reporting are named services, and the terms set interest if settlement is delayed more than thirty days through Adyen's own misconduct — but we found no public information on payout delay, per-transaction fee breakdowns, export formats, or usable API documentation; the API appears only as a definition of a secured connection. 2 5
Licence, risk & account terms
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who holds the merchant's money under which licence, and what the contract lets the provider do on a bad day: freezes, reserves, termination, chargebacks. Scored on what the terms and the imprint state, not on reputation.
0 — No regulated entity named; terms allow freezing funds and terminating the account at any time with no notice, reason or timeline.
3 — A licence mentioned without the entity, supervisor or register number, and terms that permit reserves and holds with no stated limits.
5 — The regulated entity named with its supervisor and licence type, safeguarding of merchant funds stated, chargeback fees and dispute process published, and a notice period for ordinary termination.
8 — Entity, supervisor, register number and passporting stated per country; reserve and rolling-hold conditions defined with limits and release timelines; freeze and termination terms with reasons and a route to appeal; PCI DSS level and attestation published.
10 — The bad day is written down: every regulated entity in the chain named with register links, reserve calculation disclosed, funds release timelines after termination committed, a documented complaint route to the supervisor, and exit terms that include handing back payment tokens and transaction history.
The Finance Lead
The imprint names Adyen N.V. with a Dutch Chamber of Commerce number and bank licences in the USA, UK and EU are referenced, which is more than a bare licence mention. But we found no public information on the supervisor on the vendor's own pages, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or rolling-hold limits with release timelines, or a termination notice period; the chargeback fee is said to be charged separately with no amount published — the silence on reserves is what I cannot underwrite. 1 4 5
The E-Commerce Lead
The imprint names Adyen N.V. with a Dutch Chamber of Commerce number and a Dutch VAT ID, bank licences across the USA, UK and EU are mentioned, and the terms send chargebacks through the scheme rules with a separate Adyen fee. Missing from the pages I can read: the supervisor, any safeguarding statement, the chargeback fee amount, and reserve, freeze or ordinary-termination terms with notice periods. The only commitments I found are three months' notice for discontinuing a payment method and payout of balances on sub-accounts inactive for six months. 4 1 5
The SaaS Founder
Adyen N.V. is named in the imprint with its Amsterdam address, Dutch Chamber of Commerce register number 34259528 and a VAT number, and the homepage cites bank licences in the USA, the UK and the EU. The terms charge a separate chargeback fee and give three months' notice before discontinuing a payment method, but we found no public information on the supervisor and licence register link, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve and rolling-hold conditions, ordinary termination notice, or an appeal route on a freeze. 4 1 5
The Payments Engineer
The imprint names Adyen N.V. at an Amsterdam address with a Dutch Chamber of Commerce register number and VAT ID, and the homepage states bank licences across the USA, UK and EU; the terms publish chargeback handling under scheme rules with a separate fee, KYC obligations, three months' notice before a payment method is dropped, and payout of balances when an inactive sub-account closes. We found no public information on the financial supervisor or its register number, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or rolling-hold limits, a termination notice period or an appeal route. 1 4 5
The Compliance Officer
The imprint names Adyen N.V. in Amsterdam with Dutch Chamber of Commerce number 34259528, and the homepage claims bank licences in the USA, UK and EU — but no supervisor or banking register number appears on the captured pages, which is exactly the "licensed in Europe" vagueness I penalise. The terms do commit to three months' notice before discontinuing a payment method and define chargeback handling with a separate fee, yet we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserves, or ordinary termination notice. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
The imprint names Adyen N.V. at an Amsterdam address with a Dutch Chamber of Commerce number, and the terms commit to paying out balances from sub-accounts inactive over six months — but the bank licences claimed for the USA, UK and EU carry no supervisor or licence number, the chargeback fee is charged at an unstated amount, and we found no public information on reserve conditions, safeguarding, or a termination notice period. 4 1 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting and regulated entity is, and where transaction and cardholder data are processed and stored. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. The card schemes are US-based for every provider, so the scheme layer is not held against any one vendor; the part the vendor controls is.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where payment data is processed, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU licensed entity contracts, but payment and customer data is processed outside the EU by default without an explained safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting and regulated entity, EU processing stated for core payment data, but the group parent or significant parts of the chain (fraud scoring, support, analytics) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity and EU licence, payment and cardholder data processed and stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations, and a DPA covering the processing the provider does as processor versus as controller.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity and licence, every processing location and subprocessor European, European rails (SEPA, Wero or national schemes) offered alongside cards, and certifications published.
The Finance Lead
The imprint gives an Amsterdam address and a Dutch register number and the privacy policy is published in German with a controller role stated, but the independent sovereignty review could not confirm the contracting entity's jurisdiction from the captured pages. We found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed, on ownership, or on subprocessors and their locations. 1 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The imprint puts an Amsterdam address, a Dutch Chamber of Commerce number and a Dutch VAT ID on the page, and bank licences covering the EU are mentioned. Beyond that I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, no subprocessor list, no infrastructure locations and no ownership statement, and the independently sourced attributes came back unknown on every dimension — so the vendor-controlled part of the chain is not evidenced as European. 4 1 3
The SaaS Founder
The imprint points to Adyen N.V. in Amsterdam with a Dutch Chamber of Commerce registration, and the homepage claims bank licences including the EU, so an EU entity appears to contract. Data residency, processing locations and ownership are unstated on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list — the part that decides who can touch cardholder data is undocumented in the captures. 4 1 3
The Payments Engineer
The imprint puts the contracting entity in Amsterdam and the homepage claims an EU bank licence, so the entity layer reads as European on the captured pages. Everything below that layer is silent: we found no public information on where transaction and cardholder data are processed, on ownership, or on a subprocessor list with locations, and the privacy policy is framed around Adyen acting as controller for its own processing rather than processor commitments to merchants. 1 3 4
The Compliance Officer
Adyen N.V. with an Amsterdam address and Dutch registration is the named contracting entity, and the privacy policy is at least explicit that it applies where Adyen acts as data controller. Beyond that the trail ends: we found no public information on where transaction and cardholder data are processed, no subprocessor list with locations, and no data processing agreement distinguishing processor from controller roles. 3 4
The Skeptic
A Dutch contracting entity is published at a Dutch address and an EU bank licence is claimed on the homepage, but we found no public information on where payment or cardholder data is processed or stored, on the group's ownership, or on a single subprocessor — for a payment provider, that silence is itself an answer. 4 1 3
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a merchant can compute the effective fee for their own mix of cards, countries and methods — including cross-border and currency conversion markups, chargebacks, refunds, payouts and monthly fees — from public pages alone.
0 — No public prices at all; every rate is a sales conversation.
3 — A headline percentage exists, but it is unclear which cards and countries it covers, and cross-border, currency conversion or chargeback fees are unstated — the effective fee is unknowable.
5 — Rates published per main method with domestic and international cards distinguished, but at least one commonly incurred cost (currency conversion markup, chargeback fee, payout or monthly fee) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every method priced publicly, cross-border and currency conversion markups stated, chargeback, refund and payout fees listed, minimum monthly fees and contract term given, and whether the model is blended or interchange++ said plainly.
10 — Complete fee computability: the effective rate derivable for a given volume, card mix and country mix — interchange++ with the markup published or a blended rate with every exception listed — plus volume tiers, reserves and every ancillary fee on a public page.
The Finance Lead
Rates are published per method — Visa and Mastercard at "€0.11 + Interchange+ + 0.60%", iDEAL at "€0.11 + € 0.22", SEPA Direct Debit at "€0.11 + € 0.27" — with the fixed €0.11 processing fee and the absence of setup and monthly fees stated plainly. But American Express and Klarna sit behind "Mehr Informationen", PayPal and PIX require a direct contract, and we found no public information on currency conversion markups, cross-border distinctions or the chargeback fee amount, so I cannot compute an effective rate for our card and country mix. 2 5
The E-Commerce Lead
The model is said plainly — a fixed processing fee of €0.11 per transaction plus a per-method fee, no setup and no monthly fees, Interchange++ 0.60% printed for Visa and Mastercard — with exact figures for iDEAL at €0.11 plus €0.22 and SEPA Direct Debit at €0.11 plus €0.27 across eight named countries. Klarna and American Express defer to more information, PayPal needs a direct contract plus an administration fee, and I found no public information on the chargeback fee amount, currency conversion markups, or refund and payout fees — so the effective fee for my mix stays partly a sales conversation. 2 5
The SaaS Founder
The card model is said plainly — Visa and Mastercard at €0.11 + Interchange+ + 0.60% globally, iDEAL at €0.11 + € 0.22, SEPA at €0.11 + € 0.27, and no setup or monthly fees — so I can compute a large slice of my mix. But Klarna and American Express defer to "Mehr Informationen", PayPal and Swish run on direct contracts plus fees I cannot see, and we found no public information on currency conversion markups, chargeback fee amounts, or payout fees, so the effective fee stays partly unknowable. 2 5
The Payments Engineer
The pricing page is genuinely computable for the methods I checked: a processing fee of €0.11 per transaction plus a named method fee — €0.22 for iDEAL, €0.27 for SEPA Direct Debit, £0.55 for BACS — with cards plainly on Interchange++ 0.60% and setup and monthly fees stated as none. The gaps: American Express and Klarna sit behind a more-information link, PayPal and PIX are a direct contract plus an unquantified administration fee, and we found no public information on currency-conversion markups, the chargeback fee amount, payout fees or volume tiers. 2 5
The Compliance Officer
The pricing page publishes a per-transaction processing fee of €0.11 plus a named fee per method — Visa and Mastercard as Interchange++ 0.60%, iDEAL €0.11 + € 0.22, SEPA Direct Debit €0.11 + € 0.27 — with no setup or monthly fees, and the interchange++ model is said plainly for cards. American Express and Klarna point only to "more information", and we found no public information on currency conversion markups, cross-border rates, or the chargeback fee amount that the terms confirm is charged separately. 2 5
The Skeptic
The €0.11 per-transaction processing fee, method prices for iDEAL, SEPA, Swish, Discover and Alipay, a card model of "Interchange++ 0.60%", and the stated absence of setup or monthly fees are all on a public page — but American Express and Klarna sit behind "more information", the chargeback fee is charged at an unstated amount, and we found no public information on the currency conversion markup, cross-border costs, or payout fees. 2 5
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in NL ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The Terms and Conditions state Adyen may also contract through one or more of its local affiliates, so the contracting entity is not always Adyen N.V.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 20 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 10 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (15)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.adyen.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.adyen.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.adyen.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.adyen.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.adyen.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap docs.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap docs.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap docs.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap www.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap www.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap docs.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap docs.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.adyen.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →