Payment
Alma
Provenance unknown Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: not determined
by Alma SAS · alma.fr
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Alma at a glance
- Vendor
- Alma SAS
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- Alma SAS is listed in the payment category, but the only captured page describes the company, not its product. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Alma SAS is listed in the payment category, but the only captured page describes the company, not its product. The single public statement on record is a one-line French self-description — Éditeur de logiciels métier et facilitateur numérique, a publisher of business software and digital facilitator. Against that evidence, scores sit at 0 on payment methods, checkout and SCA, recurring billing, settlement and reconciliation, licence and account terms, sovereignty and pricing transparency, with one exception: the payments engineer scored sovereignty 1, reading the French-language site and the SAS form in the vendor name as a hint at a French company while finding no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed. The remaining sovereignty scores sit at 0 — a 0-to-1 spread that registered no material disagreement. There is no strongest area to name: judges found no public information on payment methods, integrations, licences, processing locations or prices, so the questions a merchant would ask become conversations with the vendor.
Speaks for it
- One-line self-description on a public French-language site states the vendor's own framing: business-software publisher and digital facilitator
- SAS legal form in the vendor name is the basis of the only score above zero — 1 on sovereignty — as a hint at a French company
- Plainly identified vendor, Alma SAS at alma.fr, gives buyers a direct starting point for a sales-led evaluation
Held against it
- No public information on any payment method, or on checkout, 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions or fraud screening
- Nothing published on stored credentials, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic or dunning — silence one judge called disqualifying for a subscription business
- No public information on payout cadence, settlement currencies, fee itemisation, reconciliation reports or a documented API and webhooks
- No regulated entity, supervisor or register number appears in the captured material, and nothing is published on safeguarding, reserves, freezes or disputes
- No sovereignty attributes on record: no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, or on any subprocessor list
Best for
- You plan a sales-led evaluation and will request methods, licences and rates directly from the vendor, since the captured pages publish none of them
- You want a French-language vendor relationship — the only captured page is French on a French domain, and one judge read the SAS form in the vendor name as a hint at a French company
Avoid if
- You need a documented path from basket to authorised payment — the payments engineer found none publicly to integrate against
- Your revenue depends on renewals — the SaaS founder called the silence on stored credentials, SEPA mandates and dunning disqualifying for a subscription business
- Your finance team closes the month on payout data — the finance lead could not close a month on entirely unstated payout and reconciliation information
- You must confirm who regulates the entity holding your funds — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
The scores
Too little public evidence to rate — fewer than 1 captured source or 3 proven facts — so no star rating is shown. The panel's reasoning is below.
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
The only captured statement describes the vendor as a publisher of business software, and we found no public information on any payment method list, the countries or currencies each method covers, or SEPA Direct Debit. A European merchant has no named methods per market to plan against. 1
The E-Commerce Lead
The only captured page is a one-line company self-description, and we found no public information on any payment method — no cards, no wallets, no SEPA Direct Debit, no local methods with country and currency coverage. For a merchant selling into eight EU markets there is no named list per country to plan conversion against. 1
The SaaS Founder
The only published statement is the company's one-line description of itself as a business software publisher and digital facilitator; I found no public information on which payment methods are offered or which countries and currencies each one covers. For a subscription business that needs SEPA mandates alongside cards, there is nothing here to plan a European rollout against. 1
The Payments Engineer
The only public statement we captured is the vendor's own one-line company description, which names no payment method at all. We found no public information on cards, wallets, SEPA Direct Debit or any local method, let alone which countries and currencies each covers. 1
The Compliance Officer
The only captured page describes the vendor as a business software publisher and digital facilitator; we found no public information on which payment methods a European customer could pay with, or which countries and currencies any method covers. 1
The Skeptic
The only captured page describes the vendor as a business-software publisher and digital facilitator; we found no public information on which cards, wallets, SEPA Direct Debit or local methods a European customer could pay with, or which countries and currencies any method covers. A merchant has nothing to plan against. 1
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
We found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout, 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling or fraud screening; the captured homepage gives only a general software-business description. Nothing describes the path from basket to authorised payment. 1
The E-Commerce Lead
We found no public information on checkout integration options, 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions or fraud screening; the single captured page describes the company, not the product. I cannot even tell whether a customer would leave my domain to pay. 1
The SaaS Founder
I found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout, 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, fraud screening or declined-payment handling. Without any of that, I cannot judge the path from basket to authorised payment at all, so I score to the lowest anchor. 1
The Payments Engineer
We found no public information on any hosted or embedded checkout, 3-D Secure handling, SCA exemptions or fraud screening. There is no documented path from basket to authorised payment for me to integrate against. 1
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout, 3-D Secure, SCA or exemption handling, or fraud screening — nothing beyond the one-line company description. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout, 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling or fraud screening. The captured material says nothing about the path from basket to authorised payment. 1
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
We found no public information on stored payment credentials, card-on-file charging, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic or dunning. On the evidence captured there is nothing describing how the same customer would be charged twice. 1
The E-Commerce Lead
We found no public information on card-on-file tokens, SEPA mandates, subscription logic, dunning or token export. For a repeat-purchase business this is unworkable: no captured evidence shows a stored payment method at all. 1
The SaaS Founder
Nothing published speaks to stored cards, SEPA mandate handling, merchant-initiated transactions, subscription logic, dunning or token portability — the make-or-break points for renewal revenue. I found no public information on any of it, and for me a provider that keeps the tokens keeps my customer base hostage, so silence here is disqualifying. 1
The Payments Engineer
We found no public information on card-on-file tokens, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic or dunning. Nothing evidences that a merchant could charge the same customer twice without them re-entering payment details. 1
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on stored payment credentials, SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, retries or dunning, or any route for a merchant to take their tokens elsewhere. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on stored payment credentials, SEPA mandates, subscription plans, smart retries, dunning or token portability; the captured description of a business-software publisher touches none of it. 1
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
We found no public information on payout cadence or currencies, fee itemisation, reconciliation reports, or an API with webhooks. I cannot close a month on data that is entirely unstated. 1
The E-Commerce Lead
We found no public information on payout schedule or settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, reconciliation reporting, or an API and webhooks. Finance has nothing captured to build a bank-statement match on. 1
The SaaS Founder
I found no public information on payout cadence, settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, reconciliation reports, or any API and webhooks. There is nothing a finance team could build a month-end close on from what is published. 1
The Payments Engineer
We found no public information on payout cadence, fee reporting, an API, webhooks, a test mode or a status page. As the engineer who gets paged when webhooks stop arriving, I have nothing here to build a finance process on or to monitor. 1
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on payout frequency or settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, or a documented API, webhooks and reports that a finance team could build on. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on payout cadence or settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, reconciliation reports, or an API with webhooks. A finance team could not match a payout to a bank line from anything captured. 1
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
We found no public information naming a regulated entity, its supervisor, licence type or register number, and nothing on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserves, freezes, chargeback fees or termination notice. The captured homepage names only the vendor itself. 1
The E-Commerce Lead
No regulated entity, supervisor, licence type or register number appears in the captured page, and we found no public information on safeguarding, reserves, freezes, termination or chargeback fees. Nothing published tells me what happens to my funds on a bad day. 1
The SaaS Founder
The company presents itself only as a software publisher; I found no public information naming a regulated entity, supervisor or register number, nor on reserves, freezes, termination notice or a dispute process. On a bad day I would not know who holds my money or under what rules, which is exactly what this criterion exists to prevent. 1
The Payments Engineer
No regulated entity, supervisor, register number or safeguarding statement appears anywhere in the captured pages. We found no public information on reserves, freezes, termination notice, chargeback fees or a dispute process. 1
The Compliance Officer
No regulated entity appears in the captured material with its supervisor and register number, and we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or freeze conditions, termination notice, or chargeback fees and the dispute process. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information naming a regulated entity, its supervisor or a licence number, and for a payment provider I treat a missing licence number as an answer. We also found no published terms on reserves, freezes, termination, chargeback fees or dispute handling. 1
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
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and we found no public information on the contracting entity, where transaction and cardholder data are processed or stored, or any subprocessor list. Setting the card schemes aside, nothing evidences the vendor-controlled part of the chain. 1
The E-Commerce Lead
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed, no subprocessor list, no EU licence and no certifications. A French-language self-description alone gives me nothing to underwrite EU data handling. 1
The SaaS Founder
No sovereignty attributes are on record, and I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed, on subprocessors or their locations, or on the contracting entity's licence. The French-language site and description hint at a French company, but hints are not evidence, so I score what the anchors say about complete silence. 1
The Payments Engineer
The French-language page and the SAS form in the vendor name hint at a French company, but nothing was independently sourced on the contracting or regulated entity. We found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed, on any licence, or on subprocessors. 1
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on the contracting entity's base, where transaction and cardholder data are processed and stored, who the subprocessors are, or a data processing agreement separating the provider's processor duties from controller duties. 1
The Skeptic
No sovereignty attributes are on record: we found no public information on the contracting or licensed entity, on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, or on any subprocessor list. A French-language self-description on a French domain is not evidence of EU processing. 1
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
We found no public prices at all — no headline rate, no per-method pricing, no cross-border or currency-conversion markups, no chargeback or payout fees. On the evidence captured, an effective fee is unknowable and every rate is a sales conversation. 1
The E-Commerce Lead
We found no public prices at all — no headline rate, no per-method pricing, no chargeback, payout, currency-conversion or monthly fees. From what was captured, any effective fee would be a sales conversation, not a computation. 1
The SaaS Founder
I found no public information on pricing of any kind — no headline rate, no per-method pricing, no chargeback, refund, payout or monthly fees. A merchant cannot begin to compute an effective fee for their own card and country mix from the captured pages. 1
The Payments Engineer
We found no public prices at all — not even a headline percentage, and nothing on chargebacks, refunds, payouts or monthly fees. The only captured text is the company description, so any rate would have to be a sales conversation. 1
The Compliance Officer
We found no public prices of any kind — no rates by method or card origin, no conversion, chargeback, payout or monthly fees; the captured material holds only the company description. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public prices at all — no headline rate, no chargeback or currency-conversion figures, no payout or monthly fees. Every rate here is a conversation with sales. 1
Questions about Alma
Is Alma European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Alma is based.
Where does Alma store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Alma have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Alma?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Adyen (3/5), Mollie (3/5) and Checkout.com (3/5) highest among the other 30 Payment products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Adyen (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Alma alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (alma.fr). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (alma.fr). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 8 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
- 1 legal 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
Sources (1)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.