Payment
Nexi Checkout
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 1 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Nexi Germany GmbH · www.nexi.de
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
Nexi Checkout is the online checkout product of Nexi Germany GmbH, a BaFin-licensed E-Geld-Institut registered at Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main under HRB 57036 and described as part of the international Nexi group. It is strongest on payment methods, scored 4, where twelve-plus methods are named individually — cards, PayPal, Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty invoice and instalment buying, SEPA Direct Debit via Ratepay, Trustly — and on licence and account terms, 4-5, where the regulated entity is fully identified. Settlement and reconciliation and pricing transparency follow, supported by published tiers from "ab 1,69 % + 0,20 €" and a stated payout cadence. It is weakest at recurring billing, 0-1, where we found no public information on stored credentials, mandate handling or dunning, and at checkout and SCA, 2, with nothing confirmed on 3-D Secure, exemptions, fraud screening or PCI scope. The judges did not genuinely split: no criterion spreads more than a point, and the small differences track how far each judge credited full entity identification and stated payout cadence versus unwritten safeguarding, termination, data-residency and fee-breakdown detail.
Speaks for it
- Regulated entity fully identified — Nexi Germany GmbH, BaFin-licensed E-Geld-Institut, registered HRB 57036 at Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, with managing directors and VAT ID published
- Twelve-plus payment methods named individually, including cards, PayPal, Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty invoice and instalment buying, SEPA Direct Debit via Ratepay, Trustly and Alipay
- Payout cadence stated on public pages, phrased as every second working day and as within two business days, with revenues, transactions and payouts trackable via app or merchant portal
- Three volume tiers publish exact setup, monthly and per-payment figures — Starter at 29 € setup and 19 € monthly including Paylink with 'ab 1,69 % + 0,20 €', Standard at 0 € setup and 0 € monthly with 'ab 1,29 % + 0,15 €'
- Integration documented as plugin, SDK and API, with plugins named for WooCommerce, Shopify and Magento
Held against it
- Checkout and SCA scored 2 — we found no public information on 3-D Secure handling, SCA exemptions, fraud screening or PCI scope for any integration type
- Recurring billing scored 0-1 — we found no public information on stored credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic or dunning, and paylinks are described as ideal for one-time transactions
- No Benelux method such as iDEAL or Bancontact appears in the named list, and no page states which countries and currencies each method serves
- The effective fee is not computable — the 'ab' rates carry no card, country or method breakdown, and we found no public information on cross-border and currency conversion markups, chargeback, refund or payout fees, or blended versus interchange++
- We found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and dispute handling, reserve or freeze conditions, termination notice periods, where payment and cardholder data is processed or stored, or subprocessor names and locations
Best for
- You run a German or DACH webshop selling one-time transactions and want the named methods — cards, PayPal, Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty invoice and instalment, SEPA Direct Debit — via plugins for WooCommerce, Shopify or Magento
- You want a fully identified regulated counterparty before signing — Nexi Germany GmbH, BaFin-licensed, HRB 57036 — with published tier pricing
- Your annual volume sits at bis 500.000 € Jahresvolumen and published fixed fees (29 € setup, 19 € monthly) suit your budget, with startup packages stated ready in 48 hours
Avoid if
- Your revenue is recurring — SEPA Direct Debit appears only as a name in the method list and the paylink feature is pitched as ideal for one-time transactions
- You sell mainly to Dutch or Belgian shoppers — the named method list contains no iDEAL or Bancontact
- You need an effective fee for a multi-country card mix — each tier publishes a single 'ab' rate with no statement of which cards, countries or methods it covers
- Your finance team closes the month from exports — the pages show app and portal tracking, and we found no public information on exports tying payouts to transactions or per-transaction fee breakdowns
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 named list covers Visa, Mastercard, American Express and further card brands, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty invoice and instalment buying, Trustly and Ratepay SEPA Direct Debit — a solid DACH-flavoured list. But the pages never say which countries and currencies each method serves, and I found no public information on iDEAL, Bancontact or Wero for Benelux, nor on refund or recurring support per method. Plenty of names, no matrix I can plan a market entry against. 3 6 7 8
The E-Commerce Lead
The pricing page does name methods — Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty invoice and instalments, Trustly, and SEPA Direct Debit via Ratepay — so my German market is well served, and Alipay+ is offered for Asian tourists. But there is no iDEAL or Bancontact anywhere on these pages and I found no public information on which country and currency each method covers, so I cannot plan conversion for my Dutch and Belgian shoppers; the "over 15 payment methods" figure is a count, not the per-market list I need. 3 6 7 8
The SaaS Founder
The named list gives me cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, SEPA Direct Debit via Ratepay, Klarna and Riverty/Ratepay invoice and installments — workable for DACH — but no Benelux method such as iDEAL or Bancontact appears in the named list, and the captured pages do not state which countries and currencies each method serves, so I cannot plan per market. The 'over 15 payment methods' claim is not backed by a per-method view, and we found no public information on which methods support refunds or recurring charges. 3 7 8
The Payments Engineer
Twelve-plus methods are named outright — cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty invoice and instalments, Trustly and a Ratepay SEPA Direct Debit — which covers the DACH staples, but no Benelux or wider European method appears and no page says which countries and currencies each method serves. Apple Pay and Google Pay are documented only for contactless terminals, which tells me nothing about the online path. A named list without a per-market matrix is half the job; I cannot plan routing per country from this. 3 6 7 8
The Compliance Officer
Twelve-plus methods are named individually — the major cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, PayPal, SEPA Direct Debit via Ratepay, Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty invoice and instalment, Trustly and Alipay — but we found no public information on which countries and currencies each method serves, and no Benelux method such as iDEAL, Bancontact or Wero is named. A merchant can see the German method list but cannot plan coverage beyond it. 3 6 7 8
The Skeptic
Cards, Apple Pay, Google Pay, SEPA Direct Debit and German invoice and instalment names like Klarna, Ratepay and Riverty are listed, but no captured page says which countries and currencies each method serves, and the Benelux methods that decide conversion there go unnamed. A count of "über 15 Zahlungsmethoden" is marketing, not a coverage plan a merchant can trade against. 2 3 7 8
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
Hosted, branded payment pages with a Checkout Styler and plugin, SDK and API integration are documented, which is more than a bare redirect. But I found no public information on 3-D Secure handling, SCA exemptions, fraud screening, declined-payment handling or PCI scope, so the authorisation path under PSD2 is not something I can assess from these pages at all. 2 8
The E-Commerce Lead
Branded payment pages, a Checkout Styler to match my shop's look, and plugin, SDK or API integration are documented, which is more than a bare redirect. But I found no public information on 3-D Secure handling, SCA exemptions, fraud screening, soft declines or PCI scope, so I cannot tell whether legitimate payments will be challenged unnecessarily or how the checkout behaves under PSD2. 2 8
The SaaS Founder
Plugins, mobile SDK and API integrations plus a styleable branded payment page are documented, but we found no public information on 3-D Secure handling, SCA exemption strategy, fraud screening or the PCI DSS scope of each integration type. As a merchant I cannot tell from these pages how a legitimate authorisation is kept from failing. 2 8
The Payments Engineer
Branded, customisable hosted checkout with plugin, SDK and API paths is documented, and encrypted data transfer is claimed — but I found no public information on 3-D Secure handling, SCA exemptions, fraud rules and risk scores, or the PCI scope of each integration type, even though a strong-customer-authentication FAQ page exists among the captured pages. Everything that decides whether a legitimate payment passes is undocumented here. 2 6 8
The Compliance Officer
Hosted, branded checkout with plugin, SDK and API integration and a design styler is documented, and an SCA FAQ page exists in the captured material, but nothing confirmed states 3-D Secure handling, SCA exemptions, fraud screening or PCI scope for any integration type. We found no public information on any of those points. 2 8 9
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
The checkout and pricing pages say nothing about stored payment credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate management, subscription logic, retries or dunning; SEPA Direct Debit appears only as a named method with no mandate handling described. Recurring revenue is not evidenced anywhere in what was captured, so this sits at the bottom of the scale. 2 3
The E-Commerce Lead
The only recurring-relevant fact is that SEPA Direct Debit via Ratepay appears in the method list. I found no public information on stored credentials, mandate management, merchant-initiated transactions, subscription plans, retries, dunning or moving tokens in or out — a subscription business could not be evaluated from these pages. 3
The SaaS Founder
For a subscription business this is the deal-breaker: SEPA Direct Debit appears only as a checkout method via Ratepay, and we found no public information on stored-payment tokens, merchant-initiated transactions, mandate management, subscription logic, dunning or smart retries. The payment-link feature is explicitly pitched as ideal for one-time transactions, and nothing describes how a card on file or a payment token could be exported to another provider. 3 8
The Payments Engineer
The payment method list names SEPA Direct Debit via Ratepay and nothing more: I found no public information on stored credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, subscription logic, mandate handling or dunning, and no word on whether tokens can be exported. For any business with repeat revenue this is a black box. 3
The Compliance Officer
We found no public information on stored payment credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic or dunning; the payment-link feature is described as ideal for one-time transactions, and SEPA Direct Debit appears only as a name in the method list. 3 8
The Skeptic
The captured pages describe paylinks as "ideal for one-time transactions", and we found no public information on stored credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic or dunning. Nothing here shows the same customer can be charged twice, let alone that the tokens can leave with the merchant. 3 8
Settlement, reconciliation & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting the money and knowing what it was: payout cadence and currencies, fee itemisation per transaction, reports that match a bank statement, and an API and webhooks a team can build finance processes on.
0 — Payouts on an unstated schedule, one net amount per payout, and no API or report beyond an on-screen list.
3 — A stated payout schedule and CSV exports, but fees netted invisibly into payouts and an API with thin documentation.
5 — Payout frequency and delay stated, per-transaction fee breakdown in reports, a documented REST API with webhooks and a test mode, and exports that link each payout to its transactions.
8 — Configurable payout schedules and settlement currencies, reconciliation reports that match bank lines, accounting integrations or exports named, a versioned API with idempotency and published rate limits, and a public status page with incident history.
10 — Finance can close the month from the provider's data: interchange and scheme fees itemised per transaction, automated reconciliation to the ledger, a deprecation policy for the API, and full historical data exportable after the contract ends.
The Finance Lead
Payout cadence is stated plainly — every second working day, within two business days — and that is exactly the kind of commitment I want on a public page. The merchant portal tracks transactions, fees and payouts with real-time reporting, but I found no public information on per-transaction fee breakdowns, exports that tie a payout to its transactions, webhooks, or a test mode, so month-end close cannot be planned from these pages. 1 6 7 8
The E-Commerce Lead
Payout timing is stated — every second working day on one captured page and within two business days on another — and the portal and app track transactions, fees and payouts in real time, with API named as an integration route. But I found no public information on per-transaction fee breakdowns, payout-to-transaction reconciliation exports, webhooks, a test mode or API documentation depth, so my finance team could not close a month from this. 2 6 7 8
The SaaS Founder
Payout cadence is clearly stated — every second working day, within two business days — and the merchant portal tracks transactions, fees and payouts in real time. But we found no public information on per-transaction fee itemisation, exports that tie each payout to its transactions, or webhooks, test mode and API documentation depth, which is what my finance team would need to close a month. 2 6 7 8
The Payments Engineer
Payout cadence is stated — the captured pages phrase it as payouts every second working day and as within two business days — and sales, transactions and payouts are trackable in real time via app or portal. But I found no public information on a documented API with webhooks, a test mode, idempotency or versioning, per-transaction fee breakdowns, exports that tie payouts to transactions, or a public status page with incident history — the parts my finance and on-call processes are built on. 1 2 6 7 8
The Compliance Officer
Payout cadence is stated (every second working day, within two working days), revenues, transactions and payouts are trackable via app and merchant portal, and an API is among the integration options. We found no public information on per-transaction fee itemisation, webhooks, a test mode, or exports linking each payout to its transactions. 1 6 7 8
The Skeptic
Payout cadence is stated, with the captured pages giving different wordings — "every second working day" on one and "within two business days" on another — and a merchant portal tracks transactions, fees and payouts, with an API named as an integration path. We found no public information on settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdown, webhooks, a test mode, or reports that match a bank line. 2 6 7 8
Licence, risk & account terms
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who holds the merchant's money under which licence, and what the contract lets the provider do on a bad day: freezes, reserves, termination, chargebacks. Scored on what the terms and the imprint state, not on reputation.
0 — No regulated entity named; terms allow freezing funds and terminating the account at any time with no notice, reason or timeline.
3 — A licence mentioned without the entity, supervisor or register number, and terms that permit reserves and holds with no stated limits.
5 — The regulated entity named with its supervisor and licence type, safeguarding of merchant funds stated, chargeback fees and dispute process published, and a notice period for ordinary termination.
8 — Entity, supervisor, register number and passporting stated per country; reserve and rolling-hold conditions defined with limits and release timelines; freeze and termination terms with reasons and a route to appeal; PCI DSS level and attestation published.
10 — The bad day is written down: every regulated entity in the chain named with register links, reserve calculation disclosed, funds release timelines after termination committed, a documented complaint route to the supervisor, and exit terms that include handing back payment tokens and transaction history.
The Finance Lead
The imprint names the regulated entity — Nexi Germany GmbH as a BaFin-licensed E-Geld-Institut — with the commercial register number and managing directors, which is proper disclosure. But I found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and the dispute process, reserve or rolling-hold limits, or notice periods for termination; only a cancellations contact channel exists. The bad-day terms I care about most are simply not written down in what was captured. 4 5
The E-Commerce Lead
The imprint names Nexi Germany GmbH with its BaFin e-money-institute licence, the commercial register entry at Amtsgericht Frankfurt, managing directors and a VAT ID — a clean regulated picture. But I found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or rolling-hold conditions, chargeback fees, dispute routes or termination notice periods; a cancellations contact channel and a general "flexible Vertragslaufzeiten" claim are all the terms evidence shows. 3 4 5 7
The SaaS Founder
The legal notice names the regulated entity in full — Nexi Germany GmbH, licensed and supervised by BaFin as an E-Geld-Institut, registered HRB 57036 at Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main — which is more identification than most publishers give. But we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and dispute process, reserve or rolling-hold conditions, or termination notice periods beyond a cancellations contact channel. 4 5
The Payments Engineer
The imprint names the regulated entity in full — Nexi Germany GmbH, licensed and supervised by BaFin as an e-money institution, registered at the Frankfurt court under HRB 57036 — which is more than most sites publish. But I found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees or a dispute process, reserve or rolling-hold conditions, or a concrete termination notice period; flexible contract terms and a cancellations contact channel are all the pages show on the bad day. 4 5 7
The Compliance Officer
The regulated entity is fully identified — Nexi Germany GmbH, licensed as an E-Geld-Institut with the Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, registered at Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main under HRB 57036 — which is exactly the identification I look for. However, we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and dispute handling, reserve or freeze conditions, or a termination notice period; only a cancellations contact channel and a flexible-contract-terms claim appear. 4 5 7
The Skeptic
Nexi Germany GmbH, commercial register number HRB 57036 at Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main, is named as a BaFin-supervised E-Geld-Institut, so the licence layer is in order. But we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees, a dispute process, termination notice periods or reserve and hold conditions — a "Kündigungen" contact channel is not a notice period. 4 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting and regulated entity is, and where transaction and cardholder data are processed and stored. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. The card schemes are US-based for every provider, so the scheme layer is not held against any one vendor; the part the vendor controls is.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where payment data is processed, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU licensed entity contracts, but payment and customer data is processed outside the EU by default without an explained safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting and regulated entity, EU processing stated for core payment data, but the group parent or significant parts of the chain (fraud scoring, support, analytics) are non-EU without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity and EU licence, payment and cardholder data processed and stored in the EU on named infrastructure, subprocessor list published with locations, and a DPA covering the processing the provider does as processor versus as controller.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity and licence, every processing location and subprocessor European, European rails (SEPA, Wero or national schemes) offered alongside cards, and certifications published.
The Finance Lead
The contracting entity is German and BaFin-supervised, and a subprocessor list page, Data Act notice and privacy policy are linked. But the captured pages state nothing on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, ownership beyond the German entity is not stated, and the pages note only membership of the international Nexi group without naming its home jurisdiction. 4 5
The E-Commerce Lead
The contracting entity is a German GmbH supervised by BaFin, and GDPR, data-subject-rights and subprocessor-list pages are linked from the privacy area. But I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, on group ownership, or on the locations in the subprocessor list, so the part the vendor controls is not evidenced beyond the licence itself. 4 5
The SaaS Founder
A German GmbH with a BaFin e-money licence is the contracting entity, and the privacy policy links a subprocessor list, GDPR guidance for merchants and a Data Act notice. But we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, and the group parent's home jurisdiction is not stated, so I cannot confirm the chain stays European past the German entity. 4 5
The Payments Engineer
A German GmbH with a BaFin e-money licence contracts and is supervised locally, and privacy-policy navigation links a subprocessor list and merchant GDPR guidance. But ownership beyond "the international Nexi group" is unstated, and I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data is processed and stored or what the subprocessor list contains, so the part the vendor controls is unevidenced end to end. 4 5
The Compliance Officer
The contracting entity is German and BaFin-supervised, but we found no public information on where transaction and cardholder data are processed or stored, on ownership, or on data residency. A subprocessor list and a merchant DPA page are linked, but subprocessor names, their locations, and the processor-versus-controller split are not confirmed in the captured material. 4 5
The Skeptic
Contracting sits with a German, BaFin-licensed entity, which is the clean part. But we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or on the group's ownership jurisdiction, and the subprocessor list appears only as a linked page with no names or locations captured. 4 5
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
Setup and monthly fees and volume tiers are published cleanly — Starter 29 € setup, 19 € a month including Paylink, ab 1,69 % + 0,20 € per payment; Standard from 500.000 € Jahresvolumen ab 1,29 % + 0,15 €; Individual ab 1 Mio. € Jahresvolumen variabel. But it is a single ab-headline per tier, not pricing per method, with no domestic versus international distinction, and I found no public information on chargeback, refund, payout or currency conversion fees — the effective fee for my card and country mix is not computable from public pages. 3 7
The E-Commerce Lead
Three volume tiers are published with setup, monthly and per-payment rates quoted as "ab 1,29 % + 0,15 €", "ab 1,69 % + 0,20 €" and "variabel", which is more than a bare headline. But the pages do not say which methods, cards or countries those rates cover, and I found no public information on cross-border markups, currency conversion, chargebacks, refunds, payout fees or whether the model is blended or interchange++ — for my eight-country mix the effective fee is not computable. 2 3
The SaaS Founder
Three package tiers are published with setup fee, monthly fee, per-transaction rate and volume thresholds — Starter at 19 € monthly with 'ab 1,69 % + 0,20 €' per payment, Standard at 'ab 1,29 % + 0,15 €' — which is more than a headline rate. The effective fee is still not computable: we found no public information on which methods and countries those rates cover, cross-border or currency conversion markups, chargeback or payout fees, and the top tier's rate is simply 'variabel'. 3 7
The Payments Engineer
Three volume tiers are published with setup, monthly and per-payment fees quoted exactly — Starter at ab 1,69 % + 0,20 € with 29 € setup and 19 € monthly, Standard at ab 1,29 % + 0,15 € with no setup or monthly fee, Individual at variabel — but nothing says which cards, countries or methods those "ab" rates cover. Cross-border and currency-conversion markups, chargeback, refund and payout fees are unstated and there is no statement of blended versus interchange-plus, so I still cannot compute the effective fee for a real card mix. 2 3 7
The Compliance Officer
Three volume tiers publish exact setup fees, monthly fees and from-rates per payment — "ab 1,69 % + 0,20 €" at the starter tier and "ab 1,29 % + 0,15 €" at standard — which is more than a headline number. But the rates carry no card, country or method breakdown, and we found no public information on cross-border and currency conversion markups, chargeback, refund or payout fees, or whether the model is blended or interchange++. 2 3
The Skeptic
Three volume tiers are public with exact setup and monthly figures — "Einrichtungskosten 29 €", "Monatliche Gebühr inkl. Paylink 19 €", and 0 € on the higher tiers — but the per-payment rates are "ab" figures with no statement of which cards, countries or methods they cover, and we found no public information on currency conversion markup, chargeback, refund or payout fees, or whether the model is blended or interchange++. The promise of "keine versteckten Kosten" is a claim, not a fee computability. 2 3 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
1 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in DE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 5 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 22 Sep 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The German registration is clean for the contracting entity, but the excerpts only note it belongs to the international Nexi-Gruppe, whose home jurisdiction is not stated.
- 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.
- 16 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
- 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
- 4 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 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.nexi.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Product page www.nexi.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Pricing page www.nexi.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Privacy policy www.nexi.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Legal notice www.nexi.de Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 6 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.nexi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.nexi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap www.nexi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap www.nexi.de Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →