Payment
Pay.
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by TinTel B.V. · www.pay.nl
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
Pay. — TinTel B.V. of Spijkenisse — is a Dutch payment provider. Strongest are licence and account terms and pricing transparency: the terms name the entity, Trade Register number 24283498, hold merchant funds in a De Nederlandsche Bank-supervised foundation at a Wft-licensed credit institution, publish a per-method rate card, and state the conversion fee exactly — €0.03 per payment and 2.75% of the transaction value. Payment methods scored a flat 4: Klarna, Riverty and Billink priced by country, but "more than 50 methods" is a count. Weakest: recurring billing scored 0-2, stored credentials, SEPA mandates, subscription logic and token export unevidenced; checkout and SCA scored 2-3, 3-D Secure priced only on request; settlement and reconciliation scored 2-3, payout within one working day committed but no public information on an API, webhooks or fee itemisation. Judges' scores sit in narrow ranges — no material disagreement. Sovereignty scored 2-3: Dutch entity and safeguards stated, no public information on data residency, ownership or subprocessors; the captured pages give different figures for contract duration — "No contract duration" versus a one-year initial term with tacit renewal.
Speaks for it
- Per-method rates published by country and plan — Klarna for the Netherlands and Belgium, Riverty and Billink for the Netherlands, plus cards, gift cards and terminal debit
- Entity chain named and checkable — TinTel B.V. under Trade Register number 24283498, with merchant funds held by a De Nederlandsche Bank-supervised foundation at a Wft-licensed credit institution
- Payout committed within one working day provided the Book Balance permits, with a 99.9% availability guarantee and fee discounts below it
- PCI DSS Level 1 published, audited annually since 2014 by a Qualified Security Assessor and an external accountant
- Currency conversion cost stated exactly — €0.03 per payment and 2.75% of the transaction value — alongside the minimum-bill formula and published onboarding fees
Held against it
- Recurring billing unevidenced — we found no public information on stored payment credentials, SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, dunning or exporting tokens to another provider
- Checkout evidence limited to PCI statements — 3-D Secure appears only in an on-request fee list, and we found no public information on hosted or embedded options, SCA exemptions, fraud screening or declined-payment handling
- A month-end close cannot be built from what is published — no public information on a documented API, webhooks, per-transaction fee itemisation or exports linking payouts to transactions
- We found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, on ownership, or on any subprocessor list
- Bad-day terms lean on the merchant — an immediately payable fine of €2,500 per claim, a deposit held up to six months after termination, fair-use surcharges of 10.0% on billed fees or 1.0% on volume, and thirty-five days of post-termination access
Best for
- You sell one-off purchases to Dutch and Belgian customers and want the named Benelux pay-later methods priced per country
- You need a public per-method rate card, with bad-day charges quantified, before signing a payment provider
- Your procurement requires a fully named legal and safeguarding chain — contracting entity, supervised foundation, licensing
- You take in-store payments in the Netherlands alongside online sales — terminal debit rates are published
Avoid if
- You bill subscriptions or renewals — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your finance or engineering team needs a documented API, webhooks and per-transaction fee itemisation for reconciliation
- You want Apple Pay, Google Wallet or 3-D Secure priced upfront — all three sit in an on-request list
- Your chargeback ratio can run past the published fair-use bands — surcharges of 10.0% on billed fees or 1.0% on volume apply, alongside a possible fine of €2,500 per claim
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
Cards, Apple Pay and Google Wallet, and named Benelux buy-now-pay-later methods with their countries — Klarna for the Netherlands and Belgium, Billink and Riverty for the Netherlands — plus Bancontact named in the privacy policy, which is more than a vague method count. But I found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL or any DACH methods in the captured pages, so coverage beyond Benelux cannot be planned against. 1 2 3
The E-Commerce Lead
The public pages name a handful of methods with their countries — Klarna for the Netherlands and Belgium, Riverty and Billink for the Netherlands, plus Visa, Mastercard and Maestro — but "Access to more than 50 payment methods" is a count, not a list, and Bancontact appears only in passing in the privacy policy. I found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL, or which methods and currencies cover the rest of my eight markets, nor which methods support refunds or recurring charges. 2 3
The SaaS Founder
Card rates by brand and the Benelux buy-now-pay-later names — Klarna, Riverty, Billink — are priced per country, and Bancontact shows up in the data the provider collects, but "more than 50 payment methods" is the only coverage statement for everything else. We found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL or any German-market method, and for a subscription business a method list with no SEPA mandates is a list I cannot bill renewals on. 2 3
The Payments Engineer
The pricing page names Visa, Mastercard and Maestro rates plus three Dutch and Belgian pay-later methods with their countries, but the wider catalogue is only a count — "Access to more than 50 payment methods" — and we found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, iDEAL or a country-by-method list. Nothing in the captures says which methods support refunds or recurring charges, and Apple Pay and Google Wallet appear only as "Specialistic Fees... On request". 1 2
The Compliance Officer
Cards, terminal debit and several Dutch and Belgian methods are priced by name and country — Klarna for the Netherlands and Belgium, Riverty and Billink for the Netherlands — alongside 50 gift cards, with more than 50 methods advertised overall. Apple Pay and Google Wallet appear only in an on-request specialist fee list, and we found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit or a per-country matrix of coverage, currencies, and refund or recurring support per method. 2 3
The Skeptic
Klarna, Riverty and Billink are named with their countries and cards carry Dutch and Belgian rates, which is real Benelux coverage — but the claim of more than 50 payment methods is a count, not a named list, and I found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit or on which methods support refunds and recurring charges. 2 3
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
3-D Secure appears only inside a pricing line of specialistic fees offered on request, PCI DSS Level 1 is published, and the terms state who carries the PCI scope when cards are accepted on the merchant's own domain. We found no public information on hosted versus embedded checkout options, SCA exemption handling, fraud screening rules or declined-payment handling. 2 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
3-D Secure shows up only as an item under "Specialistic Fees — On request", Pay.'s own PCI DSS Level 1 certification is published, and the terms state that a merchant accepting cards on its own domain must itself be PCI-DSS compliant — the opposite of the low-scope own-domain checkout I want. I found no public information on hosted versus embedded options, SCA exemptions, fraud screening or declined-payment handling, so I cannot judge whether legitimate payments are kept from failing. 2 3 4
The SaaS Founder
3-D Secure appears only inside a "Specialistic Fees — On request" list alongside Apple Pay and Google Wallet, PCI DSS Level 1 certification is published, and the terms state the provider is responsible for platform security while card acceptance on the merchant's own domain shifts PCI compliance onto the merchant. We found no public information on SCA exemptions, fraud screening, declined-payment handling or authorisation-rate reporting. 2 3 4
The Payments Engineer
3-D Secure appears only inside the specialistic-fee list ("Apple Pay Google Wallet and 3dSecure"), and we found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout options, SCA exemptions, fraud screening or declined-payment handling. The one thing that is allocated is PCI scope: Pay. is "responsible for the security of the Payment Platform", while a merchant taking cards on its own domain "must be PCIDSS compliant and provide proof of this to Pay." 2 3 4
The Compliance Officer
3-D Secure appears on the pricing page only as a named item inside the on-request specialist fees, and the PCI statements — Level 1 attestation audited annually since 2014, platform responsibility for stored transaction details, merchant PCI compliance required for cards on the merchant's own domain — are the extent of the public material. We found no public information on hosted or embedded checkout options, SCA exemptions, fraud screening or declined-payment handling. 2 3 4
The Skeptic
3-D Secure shows up only as a line under specialistic fees that are "on request", not as a documented checkout flow, and while PCI DSS Level 1 and the scope split for cards on the merchant's own domain are stated, I found no public information on checkout options, SCA exemptions, fraud screening or declined-payment handling. 2 3 4
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
I found no public information anywhere in the captured pages on stored payment credentials, SEPA mandate handling, subscription logic, dunning or token export — nothing to judge a recurring-revenue operation on. For a criterion this silent, the bottom of the scale is what the published evidence supports. 2 4
The E-Commerce Lead
I found no public information on stored payment credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, retries, dunning, or exporting tokens to another provider. Nothing in the pricing pages or the terms describes charging the same customer a second time. 2 4
The SaaS Founder
We found no public information on stored payment tokens, SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, dunning, smart retries or a card account updater — nothing on any of it, and this is the heart of my business. The only exit-relevant term gives thirty-five days of limited access to retrieve transaction information after termination, and we found no public information on any process for exporting payment tokens to another provider, so a provider that holds the credentials holds my customer base. 4
The Payments Engineer
Across the homepage, pricing page, privacy statement and terms we found no public information on stored payment credentials, card-on-file or merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, retries, dunning, or any process for moving payment tokens in or out. On the captured pages, recurring support is simply unevidenced. 1 2 3 4
The Compliance Officer
Across the captured pricing, terms and privacy pages we found no public information on stored payment credentials, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans, dunning or any process for exporting payment tokens. Not one element of this criterion is evidenced, which the lowest level of it covers. 2 4
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
The terms commit to transferring payments and refunds within one working day provided the Book Balance permits it, bill transaction fees weekly or monthly, and keep transaction details consultable for at least one year, with an annual audit right over the Book Balance. But we found no public information on a per-transaction fee breakdown, exports linking payouts to their transactions, or documented API and webhooks — so a month-end close cannot be built from what is published. 1 2 4
The E-Commerce Lead
Payout timing is stated — within one working day provided the book balance permits — and transactions are consultable for at least a year, with an annual audit right for the merchant. But I found no public information on per-transaction fee itemisation, a documented API with webhooks, exports that link payouts to transactions, settlement currencies, or a public status page; "45+ Plugins" and "100+ Features" are counts, not something a finance team can build on. 4 1
The SaaS Founder
Payout timing is committed in the terms — transfer within one working day provided the Book Balance permits — transaction details are consultable for at least a year, the merchant gets an annual audit right against the account and Book Balance, and free testing is included. We found no public information on per-transaction fee itemisation, a documented API with webhooks, exports linking payouts to their transactions, or a public status page with incident history. 2 4
The Payments Engineer
The terms state payout speed — payment instructions and refunds transferred "within one working day, provided the Merchant's Book Balance permits this" — plus an annual audit right over the account and Book Balance, one year of consultable transaction details and 35 days of post-termination access. But we found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, idempotency, versioning, fee itemisation per transaction or reconciliation reports; the pricing page offers only "free testing included" and "45+ Plugins" as hints of an integration layer. 2 4
The Compliance Officer
The terms commit to transferring payments and refunds within one working day provided the Book Balance permits, keep transaction details consultable for at least one year on the platform, and grant the merchant an annual audit right over the records and Book Balance. Beyond the platform's own on-screen views we found no public information on per-transaction fee itemisation, export formats linking payouts to transactions, or documented API and webhooks — integration partners and plugins are counted but not described. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
The terms commit to transferring payments within one working day provided the Book Balance permits it, plus a 99.9% availability guarantee with fee discounts and a once-a-year audit right — but that is a single instructed transfer with no fee itemisation, and I found no public information on an API, webhooks, exports or reconciliation reports; access after termination lasts thirty-five days. 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
The bad-day paperwork is largely written down: TinTel B.V. under Trade Register number 24283498, client funds segregated in a stichting derdengelden account at a Wft-licensed credit institution supervised by De Nederlandsche Bank, a three-month notice period after the one-year initial term, a deposit held up to six months after termination, quantified chargeback-ratio bands with 10% and 1% surcharges, and PCI DSS Level 1 audited annually since 2014. What holds it back: no passporting stated per country, no disclosed calculation for the deposit, and no published route to appeal a suspension. 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
TinTel B.V. is named with its trade register number, merchant funds are safeguarded in a separate stichting derdengelden supervised by De Nederlandsche Bank, the deposit is held at most six months after termination, ordinary termination takes three months' written notice after the initial year, and PCI DSS Level 1 is published. I found no public information on passporting per country, how the deposit is calculated, or a documented complaint route to the supervisor. 4 3
The SaaS Founder
The chain is named and checkable: TinTel B.V. entered in the Trade Register under number 24283498, a Stichting Derdengelden supervised by De Nederlandsche Bank holding merchant funds at a Wft-licensed credit institution, PCI DSS Level 1 audited annually since 2014, three months' notice after a twelve-month initial term, thirty days' notice on fee changes, a deposit held no longer than six months after termination, and published chargeback-ratio bands with defined surcharges. What holds it back: we found no public information on passporting per country, how the deposit or reserves are calculated, or a route to appeal a suspension or freeze. 3 4
The Payments Engineer
The terms name TinTel B.V. with its trade register number, hold merchant funds in a segregated stichting derdengelden supervised by De Nederlandsche Bank at a Wft-licensed credit institution, and the privacy page publishes PCI DSS Level 1 audited annually since 2014. Ordinary termination runs on a 12-month initial term with tacit renewal and three months' notice, and chargeback pressure is quantified through a fair-use table with surcharges of 10.0% and 1.0%. We found no public information on freeze or rolling-reserve limits with release timelines, an appeal route, or any exit handover beyond 35 days of limited platform access and a deposit held up to six months after termination. 3 4
The Compliance Officer
The terms name TinTel B.V. of Spijkenisse under Trade Register number 24283498 and a separate Stichting Derdengelden Pay. supervised by De Nederlandsche Bank under its own register number, holding merchant funds at a credit institution licensed under the Dutch Financial Supervision Act — a properly written entity chain. We found no public information on passporting per country, reserve calculation, or an appeal route for suspension, and the published freeze-adjacent terms are a €2,500 per-claim fine, a deposit held up to six months after termination, and fair-use chargeback bands with 10% and 1% surcharges. 3 4
The Skeptic
TinTel B.V. is named with its Trade Register number, safeguarding runs through a De Nederlandsche Bank-supervised foundation at a Wft-licensed credit institution, and ordinary termination takes three months' notice — that part is respectable. The bad-day terms lean hard on the merchant: a deposit held up to six months after termination, an immediately payable fine of € 2,500 per claim, and fair-use surcharges of 10.0% on billed fees or 1.0% on volume, while I found no public information on a per-dispute chargeback fee, a dispute process or a complaint route to the supervisor. 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 entity is Dutch — TinTel B.V. of Spijkenisse — with a De Nederlandsche Bank-supervised foundation holding client funds and a processor agreement available for its processor role. But we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, and no subprocessor list with locations. 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The terms name a Dutch contracting entity and a DNB-supervised safeguarding foundation, which is a start. But I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, on the group's ownership, or on any subprocessor and its locations — the privacy policy describes access and retention without stating processing locations. 3 4
The SaaS Founder
A Dutch entity contracts and a De Nederlandsche Bank-supervised foundation safeguards merchant funds at a Dutch credit institution, and a processor agreement exists for the roles where the provider acts as processor. But we found no public information on where payment or cardholder data is processed and stored, on the group's ownership, or on any subprocessor list with locations — the privacy pages name the entity and the safeguards, not the geography of the data. 3 4
The Payments Engineer
The contracting entity is Dutch — TinTel B.V. of Spijkenisse, with the safeguarding foundation in the same jurisdiction — but we found no public information on where payment or cardholder data is processed or stored, and no subprocessor list with locations. The privacy statement covers role-based access, a confidentiality regime and offers a processor agreement, yet names no infrastructure, region or residency commitment. 3 4
The Compliance Officer
The contracting party is a Dutch private company with a Trade Register number and a DNB-supervised foundation safeguards merchant funds, but the captured pages say nothing about where transaction and cardholder data are processed or stored, and no subprocessor list is published. A processor agreement is offered for cases where the provider acts as processor, yet the controller-versus-processor split and processing locations are not written down in the public material we could see — the level where an EU entity contracts but the subprocessor list is absent. 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is Dutch — TinTel B.V. of Spijkenisse with a Dutch Trade Register number — and merchant funds sit at a credit institution licensed under the Dutch Financial Supervision Act, but that is where the trail ends: I found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed and stored, on ownership, or on any subprocessor list. 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
Per-method and per-plan rates are published with their countries — Klarna Netherlands and Belgium '€0,45 + 2,95%', Visa '€0,15 + 1,50%' — and the conversion fee is stated as €0.03 plus 2.75% of the transaction value, with the minimum-invoice formula, onboarding and risk-investigation fees and the initial term all public. Apple Pay, Google Wallet and 3-D Secure are priced on request, the IC++ calculation applies only above €1,000,000 'Please contact Sales', and we found no public information on payout or refund fees. The captured pages also give different figures for contract duration — 'No contract duration' on the pricing page against a one-year initial term with tacit renewal in the terms. 2 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The rate card is genuinely public — card, BNPL, gift card and terminal rates by country, a currency conversion fee of "€0.03 per payment and 2.75% of the transaction value", a minimum bill of 75% of average fees, and fair-use surcharges spelled out. But Apple Pay, Google Wallet and 3-D Secure sit under "On request", the IC++ calculation requires contacting Sales, and I found no public chargeback or refund fee; the captured pages also give different figures for contract duration — "No contract duration" on the pricing page versus a twelve-month initial term with tacit renewal in the terms. 2 4 1
The SaaS Founder
There is unusual candour in the terms: currency conversion at "€0.03 per payment and 2.75% of the transaction value", claims from payment networks passed through with a 15% administration surcharge, a minimum invoice of 75% of the average fees after two quiet months, onboarding tiers from zero to "from € 950,-", and the pricing model question answered — interchange++ available above "€1,000,000 in online card payments", otherwise blended per-method rates with per-brand card prices published. But Apple Pay, Google Wallet and 3-D Secure sit in an "On request" list, and we found no public information on payout or refund fees, so my effective fee is close to computable but not fully. 2 4
The Payments Engineer
Per-method rates are public — Visa and Mastercard at €0,12 + 1,30% for Business, Klarna "Pay later in 30 days" at €0,45 + 2,95% for Professional — and the terms disclose the conversion cost ("€0.03 per payment and 2.75% of the transaction value"), a minimum bill of 75% of average fees, onboarding charges and risk-investigation fees. Apple Pay, Google Wallet and 3-D Secure are "On request", interchange++ only exists above €1,000,000 via Sales, and we found no public information on refund or payout fees. The captured pages also give different figures for contract duration: the homepage says "No contract duration" while the terms set a one-year initial term with tacit renewal. 1 2 4
The Compliance Officer
Per-method rates are published in two named tiers for cards, Klarna, Riverty, Billink, gift cards and terminal debit, the conversion cost is stated exactly as €0.03 per payment and 2.75% of the transaction value, and chargeback behaviour is governed by a published fair-use band table with surcharges of 10% on billed fees and 1% on volume. We found no public information on a cross-border card markup, refund or payout fees, IC++ is only offered above €1,000,000 in online card payments via Sales, and the captured pages give different figures for contract commitment — no contract duration on the services page against a twelve-month initial term with tacit renewal in the terms. 1 2 4
The Skeptic
Per-method rates are public down to gift cards and meal vouchers, the currency conversion markup is unusually explicit — an exchange rate fee of €0.03 per payment and 2.75% of the transaction value — and the minimum invoice rule, onboarding and risk-investigation fees are spelled out in the terms. The classic gotchas stay unstated though: no chargeback, refund or payout fee, domestic versus international cards not distinguished, and Apple Pay, Google Wallet and 3-D Secure priced only on request; the captured pages also give different figures for contract commitment — "No cure, no pay. No contract duration" against a one-year initial term with tacit renewal — and interchange++ pricing is only offered above €1,000,000 in online card payments via sales. 1 2 4
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.
- 16 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
- 14 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
- 13 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
- 5 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
- 1 integrations 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
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.pay.nl Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.pay.nl Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.pay.nl Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.pay.nl Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.pay.nl Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →