Payment
Mollie
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Mollie B.V. · www.mollie.com
Compare with Stripe → Compare with PAYONE → 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
Mollie B.V. is an Amsterdam payment provider, licensed as an e-money institution by the Dutch central bank under register number F0038, with Mollie UK Ltd registered at the FCA under FRN 977968. Payment methods is the strength at 7 — 7 — backed by named local methods from iDEAL | Wero at 0,42 € to BLIK, TWINT and Przelewy24, and pricing transparency clusters at 6-7 on a published rate card — EEA consumer cards at 1,80 % + 0,25 €, no monthly fees — though we found no public information on chargeback or refund fees, so an end-to-end cost cannot be computed. Checkout and strong customer authentication is the clear weakness at 2 — 2 — the pages show an included checkout and a fraud-prevention module by name, and no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions or PCI scope. Recurring billing sits at 4-5, licence and account terms at 4-5, sovereignty at 3-4 and settlement and reconciliation at 4; no criterion spread by more than a point, and no material disagreement was computed between judges.
Speaks for it
- Nearly every captured method carries a public rate, with cards split into EEA consumer at 1,80 % + 0,25 €, EEA commercial at 2,90 % + 0,25 € and non-EEA at 3,25 % + 0,25 € under a stated no-monthly-fees model.
- Named European coverage spans BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS, iDEAL | Wero at 0,42 €, Bancontact, Swish and Bacs, with Klarna and Billie priced per country.
- Both regulated entities are fully identified — Mollie B.V. as an e-money institution under the Dutch central bank with register number F0038, and Mollie UK Ltd under the FCA with FRN 977968.
- Developer resources are public, including documentation, libraries, a changelog, a status page and test keys without contract on the same endpoints as live.
- Checkout, recurring payments, payment links and invoicing are listed as included without additional cost.
Held against it
- We found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, PCI scope or hosted-versus-embedded integration options.
- We found no public information on chargeback or refund fees, which keeps an effective rate from being computed end to end.
- We found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserves or rolling holds, termination notice or appeal routes.
- We found no public information on settlement currencies, payout delay or schedule, or on which methods support refunds and recurring charges.
- We found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored; subprocessors appear only as categories plus Ekata of Mastercard, without locations.
Best for
- You are planning a multi-market European rollout and want local methods — iDEAL | Wero at 0,42 €, BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS — publicly priced before you commit.
- You want to build and test before signing: test keys run without contract against the same endpoints as live.
- Your finance team compares providers on published per-method rates, payout costs and a stated no-monthly-fees model.
- You run a SaaS with straightforward subscriptions: recurring payments and failed-payment recovery are included, with SEPA Direct Debit at 0,35 €.
Avoid if
- You must evaluate authorisation behaviour before committing — the captured pages show only an included checkout and a fraud-prevention module by name, with no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions or PCI scope.
- You need an end-to-end cost per transaction — we found no public information on chargeback or refund fees, Apple Pay's rate depends on the underlying credit card, and PayPal is priced only as PayPal fees plus 0,10 €.
- You must rule out transfers of personal data outside the EEA — the privacy policy acknowledges such transfers under EU standard contractual clauses and states personal data is used to train AI models.
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
More than 38 payment methods are claimed and the price list names iDEAL and Wero, Bancontact, Klarna, BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24 and EPS, with Klarna and Billie even priced per country group — breadth I could plan a European rollout against. But we found no public information on settlement currencies, on which methods support refunds or recurring charges, or on Google Pay, so the planning matrix a finance team needs is not on the pages. 1 2 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The pricing page names exactly the methods my markets need — iDEAL and Wero at 0,42 €, Bancontact, BLIK, EPS, Przelewy24, TWINT and Swish alongside cards, Apple Pay and SEPA Direct Debit, with Klarna priced per country for Germany, Austria and Switzerland, France, the Netherlands and Belgium, and the Nordics. The "over 38 payment methods" headline stays a count rather than a list, and we found no public information on which countries and settlement currencies each method covers, on per-method refund and recurring support, or on Google Pay. 1 2 4
The SaaS Founder
Over 38 methods with one integration, and the pricing page names the locals that decide conversion per market — iDEAL | Wero at 0,42 €, Bancontact, EPS, BLIK, Przelewy24, TWINT, Swish, Bacs, plus Klarna, Billie and in3 priced by country — which clears the DACH and Benelux baseline comfortably. What holds it below the top band: we found no public information on settlement currencies or on which methods support recurring charges and refunds, Google Pay appears nowhere in the captured pages, and countries per method show up only in the Klarna and Billie rate lines. 1 2 4
The Payments Engineer
The pricing page names the methods a European rollout needs — iDEAL and Wero, Bancontact, EPS, BLIK, Przelewy24, TWINT, Swish and SEPA Direct Debit — with Klarna and Billie priced per country group and card rates split EEA consumer, commercial and non-EEA. What I cannot plan against: settlement currencies are not stated, refunds and recurring support are not documented per method, and Apple Pay is left at a rate that depends on the underlying credit card. 1 2 4
The Compliance Officer
Named pricing shows broad European coverage — BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS, iDEAL|Wero, Bancontact, Swish, Bacs, plus Klarna and Billie split by country — alongside SEPA Direct Debit and Visa and Mastercard tiered by EEA consumer, EEA commercial and non-EEA. We found no public information on settlement currencies, on which individual methods support refunds or recurring charges, or on Google Pay, which keeps this below the top band. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
The named list runs genuinely broad — BLIK, TWINT, Przelewy24, EPS and iDEAL|Wero at 0,42 € sit beside Bancontact, Klarna tiered by country group and SEPA Direct Debit at 0,35 € — well past the DACH/Benelux baseline. But we found no public information on settlement currencies, and none on which methods support refunds or recurring charges, so the breadth is not a matrix a merchant can plan against. "Über 38 Zahlungsmethoden" is a count, not a per-market plan. 1 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
A checkout is included and fraud prevention is named as a module, and the dashboard advertises rescuing failed payments — but we found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, PCI scope per integration or authorisation handling. I would not hand over authorisation flows on marketing copy alone. 1 2
The E-Commerce Lead
Checkout is listed as included at no extra cost and fraud prevention appears as a module name, with the dashboard promising to rescue failed payments — but we found no public information on hosted versus on-domain checkout options, on 3-D Secure or SCA exemptions, on PCI scope, or on authorisation rates. As someone judged on conversion, I cannot see from the public pages whether the challenge fires only when it must. 1 2
The SaaS Founder
The captured pages show a checkout included at no extra cost and a fraud prevention module by name, and that is the extent of it. We found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, PCI DSS scope, liability shift or declined-payment strategy, so I cannot judge what this authorisation path costs me in failed renewals. 1 2
The Payments Engineer
Fraud prevention is named as a module, a checkout is included at no extra cost, and the dashboard offers recovery of failed payments — but I found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, hosted versus embedded options, or the PCI scope of any integration. For a PSD2 shop that silence sits just above the bottom of the scale. 1 2 3
The Compliance Officer
A checkout is listed as included at no extra cost and fraud prevention is named as a product module, with dashboard tools for disputing chargebacks and recovering failed payments. We found no public information on hosted versus embedded options, 3-D Secure or SCA exemption handling, PCI DSS scope per integration, or liability shift. 1 2
The Skeptic
The pages name a checkout, a fraud-prevention module and automated decisions "zur Aufdeckung und Verhinderung von Finanzkriminalität" — and that is the entire story. We found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions, hosted versus embedded integration, or PCI DSS scope. Fraud screening appears as a bullet, and a bullet is not something a merchant can audit or configure. 1 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
Recurring payments are included at no extra cost, subscriptions are a named product module and failed-payment recovery is advertised, so the basics are visibly covered. We found no public information on SEPA mandate management, merchant-initiated transactions, dunning behaviour, or any documented process for taking stored payment tokens to another provider. 1 2
The E-Commerce Lead
Recurring payments are included at no extra cost, subscriptions are a named module, and the dashboard advertises recovery of failed payments. We found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, merchant-initiated transactions, dunning and smart retries, or whether stored payment credentials can be exported to another provider. 1 2
The SaaS Founder
Subscriptions are a named product module, recurring payments are listed as included at no cost, SEPA Direct Debit is on the rate card at 0,35 €, and the dashboard names recovering failed payments — that meets the basic bar of stored methods, SEPA and failed-payment handling. But for a business like mine the absences matter: we found no public information on trials, proration, mandate pre-notification, smart retries, account updater, or any process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. 1 2
The Payments Engineer
Recurring payments are included without additional cost, subscriptions are a named module, SEPA Direct Debit is priced, and the dashboard mentions rescuing failed payments. I found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, merchant-initiated transactions, dunning, account updater, or any process for exporting stored payment credentials to another provider. 1 2
The Compliance Officer
Subscriptions are named as a capability, recurring payments are listed as included at no additional cost, SEPA Direct Debit is priced at 0,35 €, and the dashboard advertises recovery of failed payments. We found no public information on SEPA mandate handling and pre-notification, merchant-initiated transaction documentation, account updater, or any process for exporting stored payment tokens to another provider. 1 2
The Skeptic
Subscriptions are a named module, recurring payments are listed as included without extra cost, the dashboard claims to "rette eine fehlgeschlagene Zahlung", and SEPA Direct Debit is priced at 0,35 €. Beyond those names the pages go quiet: we found no public information on mandate handling, dunning, card account updater, or any process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. Feature names are claims, not documentation. 1 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
Developer documentation, libraries, a status link and test keys on the same endpoints as live are published, balance reconciliation is named as a product module, and payouts are priced at up to five free per month with 0,25 € per additional payout for merchants under 500.000 € a year. But we found no public information on payout delay, per-transaction fee itemisation in reports, webhooks, or exports tying each payout to its transactions — I could not close a month from what is shown. 1 2
The E-Commerce Lead
Balance reconciliation is a named module, and developers get documentation, libraries, a changelog, a status link and test keys on the same endpoints as live. The pricing page states five free payouts per month when processing under 500.000 € a year and then 0,25 € per extra payout, but we found no public information on payout delay, per-transaction fee breakdowns, webhooks or accounting exports. 1 2
The SaaS Founder
The developer story has real substance — test keys with no contract on the same endpoints as live, a changelog, libraries and a status link — and a balance reconciliation module is named alongside payout rules like five free payouts a month. We found no public information on payout frequency or delay, per-transaction fee breakdowns, or webhooks, so a month-end close is a product claim rather than a documented capability. 1 2
The Payments Engineer
The developer section shows documentation, a changelog, libraries and a status link, and the test setup is exactly what I want — test keys with no contract and the same endpoints for test and live. Payout frequency and delay are not stated, and beyond a balance-reconciliation module being named I found no public information on per-transaction fee breakdowns, webhooks, or exports that tie each payout to its transactions. 1 2
The Compliance Officer
Balance reconciliation is named as a platform module, developer documentation with a changelog and status page is public, test keys run against the same endpoints as live, and payout pricing is published including five free payouts per month below 500.000 € annual volume and a 1% fee for payouts outside the main balance currency. We found no public information on payout frequency or delay, per-transaction fee itemisation, webhooks, or exports linking each payout to its transactions. 1 2
The Skeptic
Payout costs are public — five free per month below 500.000 € annual processing, then 0,25 € each, plus 1 % when the payout currency differs from the main balance — but the schedule and delay behind those payouts are not stated. Developer resources include documentation, libraries, a changelog, a status page and test keys on the same endpoints as live, which is more than a thin shell. We found no public information on per-transaction fee itemisation, webhook coverage, or reports that tie a payout to its transactions; "Saldenabgleich" is a product word, not a specification. 1 2
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
Identification is first class: Mollie B.V. of Amsterdam is named as an e-money institution under the Dutch central bank with register number F0038 and chamber number 30204462, alongside an FCA-registered UK entity, and the dashboard at least advertises disputing a chargeback. But we found no public information on reserve or rolling-hold limits, termination notice, chargeback fees or safeguarding of merchant funds — the bad-day terms I want in writing before signing are not in the captured pages. 1 2 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The imprint names the regulated entity in full — Mollie B.V. of Amsterdam, licensed as an e-money institution by the Dutch Central Bank under register number F0038 with commercial register number 302.04462, plus Mollie UK Ltd under the FCA with FRN 977968 — and the dashboard lets merchants contest chargebacks. We found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve and rolling-hold conditions with limits, chargeback fees, or termination notice and appeal terms. 4 3 1
The SaaS Founder
Identity is fully published: Mollie B.V. as an e-money institution licensed by the Dutch central bank with register number F0038, chamber of commerce number given, and Mollie UK Ltd separately registered with the FCA under FRN 977968. The bad day is the gap — we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserves or rolling holds, termination notice periods, chargeback fees or an appeal route; the only dispute evidence is a dashboard feature for contesting chargebacks. 3 4
The Payments Engineer
Both regulated entities are fully identified — Mollie B.V. as an e-money institution under the Dutch central bank with register number F0038 and Chamber of Commerce 302.04462, and Mollie UK Ltd under the FCA with FRN 977968 — and the dashboard mentions disputing a chargeback. I found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees, reserves or rolling holds, termination notice periods, or a route of appeal. 1 2 3 4
The Compliance Officer
This is the strongest area for my purposes: Mollie B.V. is named as an e-money institution licensed and registered by the Dutch central bank under register number F0038, with chamber of commerce number 302.04.462 and a Keizersgracht, Amsterdam address, and Mollie UK Ltd is registered with the FCA under FRN 977968. We found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and dispute timelines, reserve or rolling-hold conditions with limits, or notice periods and appeal routes for freezes and termination. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The licence paper is unusually clean: Mollie B.V., E-money institution under the DNB with register number F0038, commercial register Amsterdam 302.04.462, plus Mollie UK Ltd under the FCA at FRN 977968. Then the bad-day terms are absent from the captured pages — we found no public information on reserves, fund freezes, termination notice, safeguarding of merchant funds, or chargeback fees; the only complaint route named runs to the data protection authority, not the prudential supervisor. A register number is an answer; the rest of the question stays open. 1 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
The contracting and licensed entity is the Amsterdam-based Mollie B.V. supervised by DNB, and transfers outside the EEA are acknowledged with EU standard contractual clauses as the stated safeguard. We found no public information on where payment or cardholder data is processed or stored, and subprocessors appear only as categories plus a single named provider (Ekata of Mastercard) without locations. 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
Mollie B.V. is an Amsterdam company licensed by the Dutch Central Bank, which puts contracting and regulation inside the EU. But we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, on ownership, or on named subprocessors — only categories such as infrastructure and customer-service, marketing, CRM and email software are given — while the privacy policy confirms transfers outside the EEA under standard contractual clauses, personal data used to train AI models, and fraud checks at Ekata (Mastercard). 4 3
The SaaS Founder
The contracting and regulated entity is plainly European: Mollie B.V. at Keizersgracht 126, Amsterdam, licensed by DNB, with a UK entity separately FCA-registered. But we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data is processed or stored; the privacy policy only acknowledges transfers outside the EEA under EU standard contractual clauses, the subprocessor disclosure names categories rather than companies with locations, and personal data is shared with Ekata of Mastercard for onboarding fraud checks. 3 4
The Payments Engineer
An Amsterdam entity holds a Dutch central bank e-money licence, so the contracting party is European, and outside-EEA transfers are acknowledged with EU standard contractual clauses as the mechanism. Where payment and cardholder data are processed is not stated, and the subprocessor disclosure gives categories rather than named providers with locations — apart from Ekata of Mastercard for onboarding fraud checks — so the chain is only partly visible. 3 4
The Compliance Officer
The contracting and regulated entity is Mollie B.V. in Amsterdam under DNB licence F0038, the privacy policy states transfers outside the EEA under safeguards such as EU standard contractual clauses, and it discloses that Mollie acts as controller for the processing described there and as processor only for its invoicing product. We found no public information on where payment or cardholder data are processed or stored, on locations for the named fraud-prevention subprocessor Ekata (Mastercard), or on a merchant data processing agreement; subprocessors are published only as categories such as infrastructure, customer service, marketing, CRM and email management. 3 4
The Skeptic
An Amsterdam entity with a DNB e-money licence contracts for the service and the imprint publishes the register number, so the European part of the chain is on paper. But the captured pages state that transfers outside the EEA occur under EU standard contractual clauses without naming where, and we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored. Subprocessors appear only as categories — infrastructure, customer service, marketing, CRM, email — with a single named party, Ekata of Mastercard, and no locations. 3 4
Pricing transparency
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
This is the strongest part of the file: every captured method carries an exact rate, cards are split by EEA consumer, EEA commercial and non-EEA, payouts carry 0,25 € after five free per month (under 500.000 € a year) plus 1 % for payouts in another currency, and the standard model is plainly pay-per-successful-transaction with no monthly fee. What holds it back is that we found no public information on chargeback or refund fees, the in-transaction currency conversion markup is not stated, and Apple Pay is only given as a rate that depends on the underlying credit card. 2
The E-Commerce Lead
Nearly every method carries a public rate: EEA consumer cards 1,80 % + 0,25 €, non-EEA cards 3,25 % + 0,25 €, Klarna split by country, five free payouts per month then 0,25 € each under 500.000 € a year of processing, 1 % for payouts in another currency, no monthly fees, and IC++ pricing named from 100.000 € monthly volume. We found no public information on chargeback or refund fees, which is what keeps the effective rate from being computed end to end. 2
The SaaS Founder
This is a rate card I can nearly compute my own fee from: every method priced, cards split into EEA consumer at 1,80 % + 0,25 €, EEA commercial at 2,90 % + 0,25 € and non-EEA at 3,25 % + 0,25 €, Klarna priced per country, payouts spelled out (five free per month then 0,25 € each below 500.000 € a year, 1 % on foreign-currency payouts), no monthly fees, and interchange-plus pricing named for volumes from 100.000 € a month. The remaining holes are ones I actually incur: we found no public information on chargeback fees or refund costs, and PayPal is priced only as PayPal fees plus 0,10 €. 2
The Payments Engineer
This is close to computable: EEA consumer cards at 1,80 % + 0,25 € versus non-EEA cards at 3,25 % + 0,25 €, iDEAL and Wero at 0,42 €, SEPA Direct Debit at 0,35 €, payouts free up to five a month and 1 % on payouts in another currency, no monthly fees, and interchange++ named as the model from 100.000 € monthly volume. The gaps that keep the effective fee from being fully derivable: chargeback and refund fees are not published and the per-transaction currency conversion markup is not stated. 2
The Compliance Officer
Rates are published per method with card tiers split into EEA consumer, EEA commercial and non-EEA, local methods from iDEAL|Wero to TWINT each priced, Klarna and Billie given per country, plus payout terms, a 1% foreign-currency payout fee, terminal prices, a 20 €/month POS plan, and the standard model stated as no monthly fees with IC++ available from 100.000 € monthly volume. We found no public information on chargeback or refund fees, which a merchant needs to compute an effective rate. 2
The Skeptic
Per-method rates are public down to country tiers — Klarna at 2,99% + 0,45 € for the Netherlands and Belgium versus 4,50 % + 0,35 € for France — and cards are split into EEA consumer, EEA commercial and non-EEA at 1,80 %, 2,90 % and 3,25 % plus 0,25 €, with payout fees, terminal prices and a stated zero monthly fee. But the chargeback fee and the refund fee are where a merchant bleeds, and we found no public information on either; Apple Pay defers to "der verwendeten Kreditkarte" and PayPal to "PayPal-Gebühren". IC++ and volume prices exist on the page, but only from 100.000 € monthly — past that line everything becomes a conversation. 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 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 | Not determined | — | uncited 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.
- 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.
- 15 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
- 6 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
- 6 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
- 2 support 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
- 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.mollie.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.mollie.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.mollie.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.mollie.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap docs.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap docs.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap www.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap docs.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap docs.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap docs.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap docs.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.mollie.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →