Payment
Checkout.com
UK / wider Europe Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Checkout Ltd · www.checkout.com
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
Checkout.com's record is strongest on licensing and weakest on payment-method disclosure. Licence and account terms scores range from 4 to 6: judges crediting the documented chain of regulated entities — FCA number 900816 for Checkout Ltd, an ACPR e-money licence for Checkout SAS, licences across Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, the UAE, Japan and the US, PCI DSS Level 1 — score 6, while those weighing the gaps on chargeback fees, a dispute process, termination notice and reserve limits score 4; the split reflects weighting, not different evidence. Payment methods score 1-2: '150+ currencies' and 'domestic coverage in 45+ countries' are claimed, but we found no public mention of any local method — no SEPA Direct Debit or iDEAL — only principal card scheme membership. Checkout and SCA scores cluster at 2, recurring billing at 3 with one 2, settlement and reconciliation at 3-4. Sovereignty scores 2-3: we found no public statement of where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, and one judge found nothing confirming which entity EEA merchants contract with. Pricing is a tailored quote and its scores are not counted.
Speaks for it
- Regulated entities named with supervisors and register numbers across the UK, France, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, the UAE, Japan and the US.
- PCI DSS Level 1 compliance and ISO27001 certification are stated for the company's systems.
- Checkout SAS is authorised by the ACPR as an electronic money institution, the entity named for EEA merchants.
- Vault, Network Tokens and a Real-Time Account Updater are listed as modules, evidencing card-on-file renewal infrastructure.
- Singapore merchant funds are safeguarded in a named trust account at JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Held against it
- We found no public information naming a local payment method for any market — no SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL, BLIK or Bancontact appears on the captured pages.
- We found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or PCI scope per integration type.
- We found no public information on chargeback fees, a dispute process, termination notice periods, or reserve and hold limits.
- We found no published statement of where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, and no published subprocessor list with locations.
- We found no public information on payout schedules per market, webhooks, or reconciliation reports tying payouts to transactions.
Best for
- You accept cards globally and want an acquirer whose regulated entities and register numbers are documented across many jurisdictions.
- You bill repeat charges on stored cards and can work with card-on-file modules like Vault and Network Tokens.
- You are a registered charity, for which payment processing is free in the countries where the vendor currently operates.
- You integrate through a public API reference with a test account and can negotiate pricing in a sales conversation.
Avoid if
- You need local European methods named with the countries they serve — we found no public information naming any local method.
- You must see 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling and PCI scope per integration documented before committing — we found no public information on these.
- You plan your financial close on published payout schedules and reconciliation exports — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You are a 'Foreign Entity' under the Singapore terms, which state such money may not be safeguarded under the PSA.
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
The terms name the card schemes (Visa, Mastercard, JCB, UnionPay International, Diners Club/Discover) and the pricing page claims 150+ currencies and domestic coverage in 45+ countries, but I found no public information naming a single local European method — no SEPA Direct Debit, no iDEAL, no Bancontact — so I cannot see what a Dutch or Austrian customer would actually pay with. 2 4
The E-Commerce Lead
I get counts, not names: 'Process worldwide in 150+ currencies' and domestic coverage in 45+ countries, plus a Payment Methods module — but not one local method is named for any market I sell into, and cards show up only through principal scheme membership. We found no public information on which countries and currencies each method covers, so I cannot plan a single market rollout from these pages. 2 4
The SaaS Founder
Card acceptance is well evidenced — principal membership of Visa, Mastercard, JCB, UnionPay and Diners/Discover — with worldwide processing in 150+ currencies and domestic coverage claimed in 45+ countries, but the pages name only a "Payment Methods" module: we found no public information naming SEPA Direct Debit or any local European method with the countries it serves, so I cannot plan conversion in a single European market. 2 4
The Payments Engineer
The captured pages confirm cards — principal membership of Visa, Mastercard, JCB, UnionPay and Diners — and quote "150+ currencies" with domestic coverage in "45+ countries", but not one local method is named anywhere. I found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL, Bancontact, wallets or any per-method statement of countries, currencies, refunds or recurring support. 2 4
The Compliance Officer
Card schemes are named as principal memberships and a claim of 150+ currencies with domestic coverage in 45+ countries is published, but we found no public information on any local method listed by name with the countries it serves, including SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL or any other European method. 2 4
The Skeptic
The headline says "150+ currencies" and "domestic coverage in 45+ countries and counting", yet the captured pages name no local method for any market — we found no mention of SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL, BLIK, TWINT, EPS or Wero — and cards appear only through UK scheme membership (Visa, Mastercard, JCB, UnionPay, Diners/Discover). A currency count is not a method list a merchant can plan against, and nothing tells the buyer which method serves which country or which supports refunds or recurring charges. 2 4
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 monitoring is stated plainly enough ("machine-learning fraud monitoring") and there are product lines named Authentication, Intelligent Acceptance and Network Tokens, but I found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, or PCI scope per integration type — only a general PCI DSS Level 1 statement — so I cannot tell what keeps a legitimate payment from failing. 2 3
The E-Commerce Lead
Machine-learning fraud monitoring and an Authentication module are named, and the privacy notice describes automated transaction declines, but we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, hosted versus embedded checkout, or how legitimate payments are kept from failing. Intelligent Acceptance appears as a module name with no documented behaviour behind it. 2 3
The SaaS Founder
The product list names Authentication, Intelligent Acceptance, Network Tokens and Flow, the pricing page mentions machine-learning fraud monitoring, and PCI DSS Level 1 compliance is stated for the company as a whole — but we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or PCI scope per integration type. 2 3
The Payments Engineer
Fraud appears only as marketing copy about machine-learning monitoring plus a privacy notice admitting automated transaction declines; I found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA or exemption handling, and checkout options are not described on the captured pages. Module names for authentication, intelligent acceptance and network tokens gesture at capability without content, and the PCI DSS Level 1 claim covers the provider rather than the scope per integration type. 2 3
The Compliance Officer
Fraud monitoring powered by machine learning and automated transaction declines are documented, and authentication and intelligent acceptance appear as product modules, but we found no public information on 3-D Secure or SCA exemption handling, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or the resulting PCI DSS scope per integration — the Level 1 compliance statement is made only at company level. 2 3
The Skeptic
The product list carries an "Authentication" module, "Intelligent Acceptance" and "machine-learning fraud monitoring", and the privacy notice acknowledges automated transaction declines, but we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, hosted versus embedded checkout options, or liability shift per flow. PCI DSS Level 1 compliance is attested for the provider itself; we found no public information on the merchant's resulting PCI scope for each integration type. 2 3
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
Vault, Network Tokens and Real-Time Account Updater tell me stored card credentials exist for repeat charges, but I found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans and dunning, or any process for taking the tokens with me to another provider. 2
The E-Commerce Lead
Vault, Network Tokens and a Real-Time Account Updater appear as module names — the card-on-file toolkit — but we found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans and scheduled charges, or dunning and retries. I could not tell a subscription merchant what they would actually be running on. 2
The SaaS Founder
Vault, Network Tokens and a Real-Time Account Updater are named as modules, which is genuine card-on-file renewal infrastructure, but we found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic, proration, dunning — or any process for exporting stored payment tokens to another provider, which is the part I read first. 2
The Payments Engineer
Repeat charging is implied by product names — Vault, Real-Time Account Updater, Network Tokens — but the captures document no merchant-initiated transactions, no subscription logic and no mandate handling. I found no public information on dunning, retries, pre-notification or a process for exporting stored payment tokens to another provider. 2
The Compliance Officer
A vault, network tokens and a real-time account updater are offered as modules, which evidences stored card credentials for repeat charging, but we found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans and dunning, or a documented process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. 2
The Skeptic
Vault, Real-Time Account Updater and Network Tokens are listed as modules, which reads as stored card credentials for repeat charges and refreshed card data. We found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, proration, dunning or retries, or any documented process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. 2
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
A UK terms condition mentions settlement frequency at 3 business days or more for e-money services, accelerated settlement exists at Checkout.com's sole discretion, and the pricing page promises granular per-transaction cost detail plus an API reference and test account — but I found no public information on a configurable payout schedule, reconciliation reports that match bank lines, or exports linking each payout to its transactions, so I cannot plan a close around it. 2 4
The E-Commerce Lead
A unified payments API with a developer API reference and a test account is published, and the country terms mention settlement at three business days or more plus a discretionary Accelerated Settlement, but we found no public information on payout cadence per market, webhooks, or reports tying each payout to its transactions. Advanced transaction-level analytics is claimed as a headline with no report structure shown. 2 4
The SaaS Founder
The UK terms reference a settlement frequency of "3 business days or more", Japan gets a discretionary Accelerated Settlement service, the pricing page promises interchange++ fees with granular transaction cost detail, and developers get an API reference and test account — but we found no public information on payout schedules for Europe, payout-to-transaction reconciliation exports, webhooks or fee itemisation in reports. 2 4
The Payments Engineer
There is a public developer API reference, a test account and a claimed single unified API, and the UK terms reference settlement frequency at three business days or more — but that is where it stops. I found no public information on webhooks, idempotency keys, API versioning, rate limits or a status page with incident history, and nothing on linking payouts to transactions or itemising fees per transaction; I would not build finance processes on what is captured here. 2 4
The Compliance Officer
The UK terms mention settlement at three business days or more as a condition, an API reference with a test account is published, and interchange++ fees with granular transaction cost detail are claimed, but we found no public information on payout schedules per market, fee itemisation in reports, webhooks, reconciliation exports that match bank lines, or a status page. 2 4
The Skeptic
Payout terms surface only inside country contracts — UK e-money services apply "if... your Settlement frequency under the Acquiring Services is at 3 business days or more" and Japan offers a discretionary "Accelerated Settlement" — and we found no published payout schedule or settlement currency list. An API reference, test account and "transaction-level" analytics are named, but we found no public information on webhooks, reconciliation reports tying payouts to transactions, accounting exports or a status page. 2 4
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
Entities, supervisors and register numbers are published across jurisdictions — FCA electronic money licence 900816, the ACPR authorisation of Checkout SAS, MAS, FINTRAC among them — and Singapore safeguarding at a named bank is in the terms. But I found no public information on rolling-reserve limits and release timelines, termination notice periods, chargeback fees or an appeal route; the bad day is not written down. 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The terms are unusually strong on licensing: Checkout SAS is authorised by the ACPR as an electronic money institution, Checkout Ltd by the FCA under number 900816, with Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Canada and UAE entities and licence numbers too, and PCI DSS Level 1 compliance is published. But we found no public information on chargeback fees, a dispute process, reserve conditions with limits, or termination notice — and the Singapore terms state money held for a foreign entity may not be safeguarded under the PSA. 4 3
The SaaS Founder
The chain of regulated entities is unusually well documented — Checkout Ltd under the FCA (number 900816), Checkout SAS as a French e-money institution under the ACPR, plus licences across Singapore, Hong Kong, the UAE, Canada, Japan and the US — but we found no published chargeback fee or dispute process, no notice period for ordinary termination, and no defined limits or release timelines on reserves and holds; Singapore merchant funds are safeguarded in a named trust account at JPMorgan Chase, while we found no public information describing the European safeguarding arrangement. 3 4
The Payments Engineer
The country terms name regulated entities with supervisors and register numbers — FCA 900816 in the UK, the ACPR for the French e-money entity, MAS, FINTRAC, Hong Kong Customs, the CBUAE and METI — alongside principal scheme membership and a published PCI DSS Level 1 statement. The bad day is what I cannot see: I found no public information on chargeback fees or the dispute process, a notice period for ordinary termination, reserve or rolling-hold limits with release timelines, or passporting per country. 3 4
The Compliance Officer
Entity naming is strong: Checkout Ltd is authorised by the FCA as an electronic money institution under number 900816 and Checkout SAS by the ACPR, with register or licence numbers also published for Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada, the UAE and the US, plus PCI DSS Level 1 compliance stated; we found no public information on reserve or rolling-hold limits with release timelines, freeze and termination terms with a route to appeal, chargeback fees and a dispute process, or safeguarding of merchant funds outside the Singapore trust account arrangement. 3 4
The Skeptic
Regulated entities are named with register numbers across the UK, France, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, the UAE, Japan and the US — FCA number 900816, an ACPR e-money licence for EEA merchants, a MAS Major Payment Institution licence — and PCI DSS Level 1 is attested. What I could not find: chargeback fees, a dispute process, notice periods for ordinary termination, or reserve and hold limits; meanwhile the Singapore terms state that money for a "Foreign Entity" "may not be safeguarded" under the PSA, and the UK terms state the FSCS "does not apply" to the merchant's e-money account. 3 4
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
EEA merchants contract with Checkout SAS, authorised by the French ACPR, but I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored. Biometric information is shared with named cloud providers Snowflake and Amazon Web Services, transfers to third countries rest on standard contractual clauses, and I found no published subprocessor list with locations. 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
EEA merchants contract with Checkout SAS under its ACPR electronic money licence, but the group's head entity is London-based Checkout Ltd, and we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, or on a published subprocessor list with locations. The privacy notice relies on standard contractual clauses for third-country transfers and names only Snowflake and AWS, and only for biometric data. 4 3
The SaaS Founder
EEA merchants contract with Checkout SAS in Paris, a French e-money institution under the ACPR, which is the right shape, but the group parent is a London company and we found no public statement of where payment and cardholder data is processed; we found no published subprocessor list — only categories — and biometric information is shared with Snowflake and Amazon Web Services, with SCCs and transfer impact assessments as the safeguard for third-country transfers. 3 4
The Payments Engineer
The principal entity evidenced is Checkout Ltd in London; an ACPR-authorised French entity is named in the terms, but nothing captured confirms which entity EEA merchants actually contract with, and ownership is not stated. I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data is processed or stored; the privacy notice relies on standard contractual clauses for third-country transfers, names Snowflake and Amazon Web Services for biometric storage, and I found no published subprocessor list with locations. 3 4
The Compliance Officer
EEA merchants contract with the Paris entity authorised by the ACPR, but we found no public information on where transaction and cardholder data are processed; the privacy notice relies on standard contractual clauses and transfer impact assessments for third-country transfers and names only Snowflake and Amazon Web Services, for biometric information, with no published subprocessor list showing locations. 3 4
The Skeptic
EEA merchants contract with Checkout SAS, a Paris company authorised by the ACPR — that much is written down — but we found no public statement of where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, and ownership and subprocessor locations are unstated beyond two biometric cloud providers (Snowflake, Amazon Web Services). The privacy notice contemplates transfers "from the UK or EEA to a third country" under standard contractual clauses, so non-EU processing is assumed possible rather than excluded. 3 4
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
Both a flat-rate and an interchange++ model are named, with "No setup fees" and "No account maintenance fees", but every actual rate is a tailored quote behind "get in touch with our team today" — I found no public figures for percentages, currency conversion markups, chargebacks or payouts, so the effective fee for my card and country mix is not computable from public pages. 2
The E-Commerce Lead
The pricing page names its models — 'Fully flat-rate' based on business profile and risk category, and 'Simple interchange++ fees' with granular cost detail — but every rate is a tailored quote ('Create a plan by getting in touch with our team today') and not one number is published. We found no public information on currency conversion markups, chargeback or payout fees; the only firm price statement is free processing for registered charities. 2
The SaaS Founder
The pricing page sells the model — flat-rate or interchange++ with granular detail, no setup fees, no account maintenance fees, free processing for registered charities — but every actual rate is "get in touch with our team": we found no public figures for any card mix, country, currency conversion, chargeback or payout, so the effective fee is unknowable from these pages alone. 2
The Payments Engineer
No figure is published: the pricing page advertises a choice between "Fully flat-rate" and "Simple interchange++ fees" but every actual rate is "tailored pricing based on your needs" through a sales conversation. I found no public information on cross-border or currency conversion markups, chargeback or payout fees; the only concrete commitments are no setup fees, no account maintenance fees and free processing for registered charities. 2
The Compliance Officer
The pricing page states an interchange++ model and a flat-rate model and that there are no setup fees or account maintenance fees, but no rate, percentage or fee amount is published anywhere captured — pricing is tailored and begins by contacting the sales team — so a merchant cannot compute an effective fee from public pages. 2
The Skeptic
This is a quote, not a price list: "Your business deserves tailored pricing based on your needs. Create a plan by getting in touch with our team today." The pages name the models — "Fully flat-rate" or interchange++ with "granular detail" — and promise "no surprise fees" with no setup or account maintenance fees, but we found no public figures for card rates by country, currency conversion markups, chargebacks or payouts. The effective fee is unknowable before the sales conversation. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 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 GB ⚠ unverified | 1/3 pts | 4 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 5 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. Checkout.com contracts through many locally incorporated group entities (France, UAE, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia, Singapore, Canada, Japan, US, Brazil) depending on the customer's jurisdiction; the UK entity Checkout Ltd is the group's lead contracting entity per the country terms.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. The same trust page notes acquiring transaction traffic for US merchants is also processed via AWS in the US, so EU residency is not universal across all customers.
- 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.
- 55 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
- 17 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 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
- 4 integrations 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 hosting 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 pricing 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.checkout.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.checkout.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.checkout.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.checkout.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Security / trust page trust.checkout.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Legal notice www.checkout.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 15 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.checkout.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →