Payment
Payplug
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 PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS · www.payplug.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Payplug is PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS, a Paris payment institution approved by the ACPR under bank code CIB 16378 and part of BPCE Merchant Services. Its strongest showing is pricing transparency: card rates are published per tier — Starter at €10 / month with euro zone consumer cards at 1,5% +€0,25, Pro at €30 / month at 1,1% +€0,25 — plus per-market rates for unnamed "other payment methods", all exclusive of tax. Licence and account terms follow at 4-4, with the entity, French law and Paris courts identified. The weakest is settlement and reconciliation, where judges found no public information on payout frequency, settlement currencies, fee itemisation or webhooks. Payment methods and recurring billing sit low because no local method is named and the only evidenced repeat-charge feature is "One-click payment". The genuine split is sovereignty: five of six judges scored 4 on the French chain of entity, licence, law, courts and host, while one scored 2, weighing the privacy policy's stated transfers outside the EU under adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses against unknown data residency.
Speaks for it
- Pricing transparency scored 5-5, with card rates published per tier (Starter €10 / month, Pro €30 / month) and per-market rates for other methods, flagged exclusive of tax
- Licence and account terms scored 4-4: PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS is an ACPR-approved payment institution (CIB 16378) under French law and Paris courts, with a complaint route to the supervisory authority
- Checkout and SCA scored 3-4 on Smart 3-D Secure in the Pro plan plus published figures of 83% frictionless authentication and a 92,5% average net acceptance rate
- Sovereignty drew 4 from five of six judges for the French entity, ACPR licence, governing law, courts, BPCE Merchant Services parentage and French host (VINC)
- Vendor pages report over 18,000 merchants and €10,9 billion processed in 2025
Held against it
- Settlement and reconciliation scored 2-2 — no public information on payout frequency, settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, webhooks or test mode
- No local payment method behind the per-country rates is named, and no public information exists on SEPA Direct Debit or wallets
- Recurring billing rests on 'One-click payment' alone, with no public information on subscription logic, dunning, retries or SEPA mandates
- We found no public information on the terms that bite on a bad day — safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees, reserves and termination notice
- The privacy policy states some third parties process data outside the EU under adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses, and independently collected data-residency and subprocessor attributes are unknown
Best for
- You sell mainly to euro-zone cardholders and want a published per-tier price list before talking to sales
- You must contract with a fully identified, ACPR-supervised French payment institution under French law and Paris jurisdiction
- Your indicative annual turnover is between €100,000 and €1,000,000, matching the Pro offer's band
- You run one-off online and in-store card sales and weigh published authentication figures (83% frictionless, 92,5% net acceptance) heavily
Avoid if
- Your business runs on subscriptions — only 'One-click payment' is evidenced and no dunning, retry or SEPA-mandate handling is public
- Your finance team needs published payout schedules, settlement currencies and per-transaction fee breakdowns for month-end close
- You must name local methods market by market (say, iDEAL or Bancontact coverage) before committing — the judges found no method named anywhere
- You must meet accessibility obligations — the captured pages record accessibility as not compliant
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
Card rates are split into euro zone consumer, business and international, and country-tiered rates exist for what the pricing page calls only "other payment methods" across Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Spain and Portugal, without naming a single method. We found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, Apple Pay or Google Pay, or on which methods allow refunds or recurring charges. I can price a market but cannot plan acceptance per method. 1 2
The E-Commerce Lead
Card pricing distinguishes euro zone consumer, business and international cards, and other payment methods are priced by country cluster — Belgium, France 1,40 % + 0,25 €; The Netherlands 0,39 € — with a privileged Cartes Bancaires connection stated. But we found no public information naming the methods behind those clusters, so I cannot plan iDEAL, Bancontact or Klarna coverage for my markets, nor find any word on SEPA Direct Debit or refunds and recurring support per method. 1 2
The SaaS Founder
Cards are priced separately for euro-zone consumer, business and international, and the pricing page gives per-market rates for other payment methods ("Belgium, France 1,40 % + 0,25 €", "The Netherlands 0,39 €", "Europe 3,99 % + 0,10 €"), but no method is named anywhere — we found no public information on which local methods those rates cover, or on SEPA Direct Debit or wallets. A country price list without a named method list is not something I can plan conversion against, and there is a privileged Cartes Bancaires connection but no method-by-country matrix. 1 2
The Payments Engineer
Card pricing distinguishes euro-zone consumer, business and international cards, and "other payment methods" are priced per market — Belgium, France at 1,40 % + 0,25 €, a Belgium-Germany-France-Italy-Luxembourg row at 1,20 % + 0,25 €, the Netherlands at 0,39 €, southern Europe at 1,50 % + 0,40 € — without naming which method each row prices. We found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, Apple Pay, Google Pay or any named local method, so a merchant cannot plan coverage per country. 2 5
The Compliance Officer
Cards are priced by category (euro zone consumer, business, international) and local-method rates are published per country grouping, for example "Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxemburg 1,20 % + 0,25 €", but the local methods themselves are never named. We found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, wallets, or refund and recurring support per method, so a merchant cannot plan coverage per market. 1 2
The Skeptic
Cards are priced by tier — euro zone consumer cards at 1,5% +€0,25, business at 2,5% + €0,25, international at 2,9% + €0,25 — and local-method rates are published per market (Belgium, France 1,40 % + 0,25 €; The Netherlands 0,39 €), but not a single method is named, and we found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit or wallets. The only scheme identified is the Cartes Bancaires connection, so a merchant cannot tell what a Dutch or Belgian customer actually pays with. 1 2
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
Smart 3-D Secure ships with the Pro plan, a fraud management module and Pay by Link are listed, and the vendor reports 83% frictionless authentication and a 92.5% net acceptance rate. Beyond those reported figures we found no public information on exemption strategy, decline and retry handling, PCI DSS scope per integration or liability shift. It reads as marketing with the mechanics withheld. 1 2 3
The E-Commerce Lead
Smart 3-D Secure ships in the Pro plan and the homepage publishes an 83% frictionless authentication rate across all issuers plus a 92,5% average net acceptance rate — exactly the challenge-only-when-needed behaviour my conversion depends on. Fraud management is offered as a module and the payment journey is customisable, but we found no public information on hosted versus embedded checkout, SCA exemptions, PCI DSS scope, or declined-payment handling. 1 2 3
The SaaS Founder
3-D Secure is present and sold as "Smart 3-D Secure" with a claimed "83% frictionless authentication requests accepted across all issuers", fraud management appears as an unexplained module, and checkout is described only as "Optimised checkout" with journey customisation and one-click, deferred and split payment. We found no public information on SCA exemption handling, PCI DSS scope per integration type, liability shift, or how a declined payment is treated — and every failed authorisation in my world is churn nobody chose. 1 2 3 5
The Payments Engineer
"Smart 3-D Secure" ships in the Pro plan, the homepage publishes an 83% frictionless authentication acceptance rate and claims to "prevent fraud and minimise payment failures", and a fraud management module exists. We found no public information on hosted versus embedded checkout options, SCA exemption strategy, configurable fraud rules or the PCI DSS scope of each integration type, so the integration risks are unreadable before signing up. 1 2 3 5
The Compliance Officer
3-D Secure is confirmed for fraud detection, the Pro plan includes "Smart 3-D Secure", and the vendor publishes an 83 % frictionless authentication rate and a 92,5 % net acceptance rate, which evidences SCA exemption handling on the merchant's behalf. We found no public information on hosted versus embedded checkout options, PCI DSS scope per integration, exemption strategy documentation, or soft-decline and retry handling. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Smart 3-D Secure is sold as a Pro feature and the vendor publishes an 83% frictionless authentication acceptance rate, but a headline percentage is not a documented exemption strategy: we found no public information on hosted versus embedded checkout options, SCA exemption handling, declined-payment retry, PCI DSS scope per integration, or liability shift. Fraud management appears as a module name with no rules or risk scores exposed. 1 2 3 5
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
One-click payment on the Pro plan implies stored card credentials for repeat charges, with deferred and split payment also listed. We found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, subscription plans with trials or proration, retries or dunning, or any documented process for taking tokens to another provider. 2
The E-Commerce Lead
The only repeat-charge signal is One-click payment in the Pro plan alongside deferred and split payment, which evidences a stored card for the customer's next purchase. We found no public information on subscription plans, SEPA mandate handling, retries or dunning, or any process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. 2 5
The SaaS Founder
The only recurring capability anywhere on the pricing page is "One-click payment", which implies stored credentials for repeat charges. We found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit mandate handling, subscription logic such as plans, proration or scheduled charges, dunning or smart retries, or any process for exporting stored payment tokens to another provider — for a business built on renewals this is close to a blank page. 2
The Payments Engineer
The only stored-credential feature evidenced is "One-click payment" in the Pro plan, which implies card-on-file for repeat charges. We found no public information on SEPA mandate handling, merchant-initiated transactions, subscription plans, retries, dunning or any process for exporting payment tokens to another provider. 2
The Compliance Officer
One-click, deferred and split payment in the Pro plan suggest stored card credentials, but that is the whole of the evidence. We found no public information on subscription plans, SEPA mandate handling, dunning or smart retries, a card account updater, or any process for exporting stored payment tokens to another provider. 2
The Skeptic
The Pro plan lists "One-click payment" and "Deferred payment" as bullets, and beyond those two words we found no public information on stored-credential handling, merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandates, subscription logic, dunning, or whether payment tokens can leave with the merchant. A feature name in a plan table is not a documented recurring-billing capability. 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
We found no public information on payout cadence or settlement currencies — the one item I cannot run a treasury without. A status page, a technical documentation link and enterprise reporting through the API exist, alongside a claim of reconciling financial flows accurately, but nothing on per-transaction fee breakdowns, exports linking payouts to transactions, or test mode. 1 2 5
The E-Commerce Lead
What is public: a single operations dashboard, a reconciliation feature, Reporting through API on the Enterprise offer, a status page and technical documentation. We found no public information on payout schedule or settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, or whether the API supports webhooks and a test mode, so finance cannot plan a month-end close from public pages. 1 2 5
The SaaS Founder
There is a promise to "Reconcile financial flows accurately and effortlessly", a single operations dashboard, a status page, technical documentation, and "Reporting through API" reserved for the enterprise offer. We found no public information on payout frequency or settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, or exports linking payouts to their transactions — I cannot build finance processes on a marketing claim. 1 2 5
The Payments Engineer
The captured pages say "reconcile financial flows accurately and effortlessly", the top tier lists "Reporting through API", and links to technical documentation and a status page exist. We found no public information on payout frequency or settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, webhooks, idempotency, API versioning or a test mode — nothing a finance process or an on-call engineer can be built on. 1 2 5
The Compliance Officer
Reconciliation is claimed ("Reconcile financial flows accurately and effortlessly") with a single Cockpit dashboard, API-based reporting appears only in the enterprise offer, and a status page and technical documentation exist. However, we found no public information on payout frequency or settlement currencies, per-transaction fee itemisation, webhooks or a test mode, so a finance team cannot build month-end close on what is published. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
Reconciliation is a marketing line — "Reconcile financial flows accurately and effortlessly" — backed by a dashboard and "Reporting through API" reserved for the Enterprise offer; we found no public information on payout schedule, payout currencies, per-transaction fee itemisation, webhooks, or a test mode. A status page and a technical-documentation link exist, but neither tells a finance team when the money arrives or what each payout contains. 1 2 5
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 regulated entity is fully stated — a payment institution approved by the ACPR under bank code 16378, with the RCS Paris registration, capital, French law, Paris courts and a documented route to complain to the supervisory authority all published. The bad-day terms are not: we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or rolling-hold limits, freeze and termination notice periods, or chargeback fees and dispute process. 1 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The regulated entity is named in full — PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS, a payment institution approved by the ACPR under bank code CIB 16378, registered in Paris under number 443 222 682 — with French law, Paris courts and a stated right to complain to a supervisory authority. We found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and dispute handling, reserves and holds, or termination notice periods and appeal. 3 4 5
The SaaS Founder
The regulated entity is fully identified — PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS, a payment institution approved by the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution under bank code (CIB) 16378, RCS PARIS 443 222 682, under French law and the Paris courts. But we found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or rolling-hold limits, chargeback fees and dispute handling, or notice periods and reasons for freezes and termination — the bad-day terms are not written down where I can read them. 3 4 5
The Payments Engineer
The regulated entity is fully named: PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS, a payment institution approved by the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution under bank code (CIB) 16378, registered RCS PARIS 443 222 682, with a terms-of-sales document and French law and Paris courts stated. We found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and dispute process, reserve or rolling-hold conditions, or notice periods for termination and freeze appeal — the bad-day terms stay unwritten on the captured pages. 3 4 5
The Compliance Officer
The regulated entity is properly named — PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS, a payment institution approved by the Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution under CIB 16378, RCS Paris 443 222 682 — under French law and Paris jurisdiction, with a documented right to complain to the supervisory authority. We found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees and dispute handling, reserve or rolling-hold conditions with limits and release timelines, or notice periods and appeal routes for freezes and termination. 3 4 5
The Skeptic
The regulated entity is fully identified — PAYPLUG ENTERPRISE SAS, a payment institution approved by the ACPR under bank code CIB 16378, RCS PARIS 443 222 682, part of BPCE Merchant Services — with a route to complain to the supervisory authority and French law and Paris courts for disputes. But we found no public information on chargeback fees, the dispute process, reserves or rolling holds, termination notice, or safeguarding of merchant funds, so the terms that bite on a bad day are invisible before signing. 1 3 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
A French payment institution with French governing law, Paris courts, a French parent in BPCE Merchant Services and French website hosting makes a European chain on paper. But we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed and stored, the privacy policy states some third parties process data outside the EU under adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses, and no subprocessor list with locations is published. 1 3 4
The E-Commerce Lead
The contracting entity is a French payment institution under ACPR supervision, part of BPCE Merchant Services with a privileged Cartes Bancaires connection, and the legal notice names a French hosting provider. But the privacy policy acknowledges transfers of data outside the EU relying on adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses, and we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed and stored, or on subprocessors and their locations. 1 3 4
The SaaS Founder
The contracting and licensed entity is French — Paris registered office, ACPR licence, part of BPCE Merchant Services — the legal notice names French hosting provider VINC, and transfers outside the EU are said to carry adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses. However, the independently sourced attributes for data residency, ownership and subprocessor exposure came back unknown, and we found no public information on where payment and cardholder data is processed and stored, or on a published subprocessor list with locations. 1 3 4
The Payments Engineer
The contracting entity, ACPR licence, governing law, courts and hosting are French, the parent is BPCE Merchant Services with a privileged Cartes Bancaires connection, and the privacy policy says transfers outside the EU carry adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses. We found no public statement of where payment and cardholder data are processed, no subprocessor list with locations, and no DPA covering processor versus controller roles, so EU processing is inference rather than evidence. 1 3 4 5
The Compliance Officer
An EU entity contracts under an ACPR licence with a French parent group and Cartes Bancaires connection, the legal notice names a French host (VINC, Paris), and the provider declares itself data controller for payer personal data including PAN and CVV. However, the privacy policy states data may be transferred outside the EU (with adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses), and we found no public information on where transaction and cardholder data are processed and stored, on a subprocessor list with locations, or on a DPA separating processor from controller processing. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
The contracting entity, the ACPR licence, French governing law, the Paris courts and a named French hosting provider (VINC) all sit in France under a French banking parent, which is more than most can show. However, the only infrastructure named is website hosting: we found no public statement on where payment and cardholder data is processed, no subprocessor list with locations, and the privacy policy confirms data is transferred outside the European Union under adequacy decisions or standard contractual clauses. 1 3 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
Card rates are published distinguishing euro zone consumer (1,5% + €0,25 on Starter, 1,1% + €0,25 on Pro), business 2,5% + €0,25 and international 2,9% + €0,25, with monthly subscriptions of €10 and €30, country-tiered local method rates, and prices flagged exclusive of tax. But we found no public information on chargeback, refund or payout fees, currency conversion markups or contract term, and whether the model is blended or interchange-plus is only hinted at for the custom enterprise offer. I can price the headline but not the effective cost. 2
The E-Commerce Lead
Published pricing is genuinely granular: €10 / month and €30 / month subscriptions with turnover bands, euro zone consumer cards at 1,5 % + €0,25 (Starter) or 1,1 % + €0,25 (Pro), business cards 2,5 % + €0,25, international 2,9 % + €0,25, six country-cluster rates for other methods, prices exclusive of tax, and an Enterprise custom offer where the interchange rate is taken into account. But the methods behind the clusters are unnamed, and we found no public information on currency conversion markups, chargeback, refund or payout fees, contract terms, or a plainly stated blended versus interchange-plus model, so my effective fee across eight countries is still not computable. 2
The SaaS Founder
Real numbers are published: Starter at "€10 / month" with euro-zone consumer cards online at "1,5% +€0,25", Pro at "€30 / month" with "1,1% +€0,25", per-market rates for other payment methods, prices exclusive of tax, and an enterprise offer where the interchange rate is taken into account. But we found no public information on chargeback fees, refund or payout fees, currency conversion markup, or contract term, so I still cannot compute the effective fee for my own card and country mix. 2
The Payments Engineer
Card rates are public per tier with euro-zone consumer, business and international cards distinguished — Starter "1,5% +€0,25", Pro "1,1% +€0,25", international "2,9% + €0,25" — plus €10 and €30 monthly plans stated as exclusive of tax and method pricing by country. We found no public information on chargeback, refund or payout fees, currency conversion markups or contract term, and only the enterprise tier hints at "interchange rate taken into account", so the effective fee is only partly computable. 2
The Compliance Officer
Rates are published per card category with euro zone consumer, business and international distinguished, local-method rates are given per country grouping, monthly subscriptions of €10 / month and €30 / month are stated, and prices are flagged as exclusive of tax. The published tiers are blended, with interchange taken into account only in a customised enterprise offer, and we found no public information on chargeback, refund or payout fees, currency conversion markups, or minimum fees and contract term, so the effective fee for a mixed book is not computable. 2
The Skeptic
Card rates are published per tier and card type — Starter euro zone consumer cards 1,5% +€0,25 up to 2,9% + €0,25 international, with €10 / month and €30 / month subscriptions and local-method rates per market, VAT exclusion stated — which is a real public price list. But we found no public information on currency conversion markups, chargeback fees, refund fees or payout fees, and no plain statement of blended versus interchange++ beyond "Prise en compte du taux d'interchange" on the custom Enterprise offer, so the effective rate for a cross-border mix cannot be computed from these pages. 2
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 FR | 3/3 pts | 4 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.
- 2 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
- 2 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 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 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 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 (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.payplug.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.payplug.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.payplug.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.payplug.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.payplug.com Checked 22 Sep 2026 Details →