Payment
SumUp
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SumUp Group (SumUp Payments Ltd) · sumup.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
SumUp at a glance
- Vendor
- SumUp Group (SumUp Payments Ltd)
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates SumUp 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. SumUp's captured pages describe a card-first payments provider for in-person and online acceptance. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
SumUp's captured pages describe a card-first payments provider for in-person and online acceptance. Its strongest area is checkout and SCA, scored 6 to 6 — the highest mark on the table — with documented EMV 3DS frictionless and challenge flows, exemption categories including the €30 EEA low-value rule, liability shift, and sandbox test cards. Settlement and reconciliation clusters at 5, reaching 6 once, on a documented payouts API (dates, fees, references, statuses; JSON or CSV) and stated next-day availability. Sovereignty scores 0 to 1: legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are unconfirmed on the captured pages, and the only legal document captured is a United States sub-merchant agreement. Pricing transparency scores 1: we found no published per-transaction rate, only that customers pay nothing and merchants carry no monthly fixed costs or minimum revenue. Licence and account terms scores 1 to 2 on that agreement, which permits charged-back amounts to be debited from the merchant without stated limits. Recurring billing splits 3 to 4: lower scores saw customer-dependent renewals; higher scores credited recurring invoices and customer-approved recurring direct debits.
Speaks for it
- Checkout and SCA scored 6 to 6, on documented EMV 3DS frictionless and challenge flows, exemption categories including the €30 EEA low-value rule, and an explained liability shift to the issuer.
- A documented payouts API returns dates, fees, references and statuses with deduction records for refunds, chargebacks and direct debit returns, in JSON or CSV.
- Next-day availability of earnings in the business account is stated, including weekends and holidays.
- The pricing model states customers pay nothing, merchants pay only when accepting a card payment, with no monthly fixed costs and no minimum revenue.
- A sandbox with test cards covering challenge, not-enrolled and technical-failure scenarios supports integration testing.
Held against it
- Pricing transparency scored 1: we found no published per-transaction rate, nor chargeback, refund, payout or currency-conversion fees, so an effective fee cannot be computed from public pages.
- Sovereignty scored 0 to 1: legal entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure are unconfirmed, and the only legal document captured is a United States sub-merchant agreement.
- The captured sub-merchant agreement permits charged-back amounts to be debited from the merchant without stated limits, a published chargeback fee or a stated dispute process.
- Recurring billing scored 3 to 4: recurring runs through invoices and customer-approved direct debits, and we found no public information on stored-card tokens, smart retries, dunning or taking payment credentials to another provider.
- Payment methods scored 2 to 3: we found no public information on which countries and currencies each method covers, on SEPA Direct Debit at checkout, or on local methods such as iDEAL, Bancontact, BLIK and TWINT.
Best for
- You accept card payments in person and online and want a documented hosted checkout with EMV 3DS and sandbox test cards to build against.
- You want stated next-day availability of earnings, including weekends and holidays, and payout records exportable to accounting software.
- You bill service customers through recurring invoices, payment links and reminders rather than card-on-file subscriptions.
- You want no monthly fixed costs or minimum revenue while the card reader sits idle.
Avoid if
- You must verify a provider's regulated entity, licence, data residency or subprocessor exposure before signing.
- You need to know your effective per-transaction fee, including chargeback and cross-border fees, before committing.
- Your subscription model depends on stored-card merchant-initiated charges, smart retries and dunning.
- You sell across European markets and need local methods such as iDEAL, Bancontact, BLIK or TWINT.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Payment methods & local coverage | 1.5 of 5 |
| Checkout, SCA & fraud | 3 of 5 |
| Subscriptions & recurring payments | 2 of 5 |
| Settlement, reconciliation & API | 2.5 of 5 |
| Licence, risk & account terms | 1 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 of 5 |
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 captured pages name the major cards plus Maestro, V PAY and Girocard, alongside Apple Pay and Google Pay, but coverage is implied by the German and British market pages rather than stated per country and currency. I found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit at checkout or on local methods such as iDEAL or Bancontact. 2 3
The E-Commerce Lead
What the pages actually name is cards — Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Maestro and V PAY — plus Apple Pay and Google Pay, and Girocard on the German page, which reads as cards and wallets plus one genuinely local method, not the per-country list I plan eight markets against. We found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit as a checkout method, on iDEAL, Bancontact, BLIK, EPS, TWINT or any other named local method, or on which countries and currencies each method covers. 2 3 4 6
The SaaS Founder
Cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay are named alongside Girocard, Maestro and V PAY, but we found no statement of which countries and currencies each method covers, and no SEPA Direct Debit acceptance for a merchant to build a mandate base on — the only direct debit mention is advice for invoicing customers. This reads as a card-first acceptance story rather than a European method list I could plan conversion around. 2 3
The Payments Engineer
The named methods are the major cards, Apple Pay and Google Pay, plus girocard and V PAY on the German pages, with direct debit mentioned only in passing in a business guide; we found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit as a first-class method, or on which countries and currencies each method serves, or refunds and recurring support per method. This reads like a card-terminal catalogue, not a coverage matrix a European merchant can plan against. 2 3 4 6
The Compliance Officer
The captured pages name Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Maestro and V PAY, add girocard on the German market page and Apple Pay and Google Pay, but give no statement of which countries and currencies each method covers. I found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit as a checkout method, or on iDEAL, Bancontact, Klarna, BLIK or TWINT — only a business-guide remark that a customer may set up a direct debit for invoices. 2 3 4 6
The Skeptic
Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Maestro, V PAY and Girocard plus Apple Pay and Google Pay are named, but coverage is presented as markets rather than a per-method country list, and we found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit at checkout or on local methods such as iDEAL, Bancontact, BLIK or TWINT. Multi-currency acceptance and settlement currencies are likewise unstated beyond a EUR example. 2 3 4
Checkout, SCA & fraud
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The path from basket to authorised payment under PSD2: hosted and embedded checkout options, 3-D Secure and SCA exemption handling, fraud screening, and what the provider documents about keeping legitimate payments from failing.
0 — A single redirect page with no statement on 3-D Secure, SCA or fraud screening.
3 — Hosted checkout with 3-D Secure 2 mentioned, fraud screening as an unexplained add-on, and no word on exemptions or declined-payment handling.
5 — Hosted and embedded checkout options, 3-D Secure 2 with SCA handled by the provider, configurable fraud rules, and the resulting PCI DSS scope for each integration type stated.
8 — SCA exemptions (low value, transaction risk analysis, merchant-initiated) applied and documented, fraud tooling with rules and risk scores exposed to the merchant, network tokens or account updater, and liability shift explained per flow.
10 — Authorisation is engineered and shown: exemption strategy documented, soft-decline retry handled, authorisation-rate reporting by method and issuer country, and a checkout the merchant can run in their own domain while staying at the lowest PCI scope.
The Finance Lead
Hosted Checkout and an embedded widget are both documented, EMV 3DS with frictionless and challenge flows is handled by the provider, exemption categories and the liability shift are written down, and sandbox test cards cover the decline paths. I found no public information on fraud screening, configurable fraud rules, PCI DSS scope per integration type, or authorisation-rate reporting. 4 5
The E-Commerce Lead
The developer docs are strong exactly where I care most: frictionless-versus-challenge 3-D Secure, four exemption types with the €30 low-value limit, issuer-controlled challenge decisions and liability shift are all written down, alongside a hosted page, an embedded payment widget, sandbox test cards and webhooks. But we found no public information on fraud rules or risk scores, PCI scope per integration, soft-decline retry or authorisation-rate reporting — and the hosted flow is a redirect to SumUp's page rather than a checkout running on my own domain. 4 5
The SaaS Founder
Hosted Checkout and a payment widget are documented, EMV 3DS with frictionless and challenge flows is explained, and the exemption categories — low value up to €30 in the EEA, transaction risk analysis, recurring payment, trusted beneficiary — plus liability shift are written down, with sandbox test cards covering challenge, not-enrolled and technical-failure scenarios. We found no public information on fraud screening rules or risk scores exposed to the merchant, nor a PCI DSS scope statement per integration, which keeps the job of keeping legitimate payments alive half-done. 4 5
The Payments Engineer
Hosted Checkout plus an embeddable payment widget, EMV 3DS with provider-triggered authentication, frictionless and challenge flows, documented SCA exemption categories with the low-value rule for the EEA, and a liability-shift statement, backed by a sandbox with test cards covering challenge, not-enrolled and technical-failure scenarios — the kind of test mode I want to build against. Docked because we found no public information on fraud screening, on the PCI DSS scope each integration type carries, on network tokens, or on authorisation-rate reporting. 4 5
The Compliance Officer
Hosted Checkout is documented end to end with EMV 3DS frictionless and challenge flows, SCA exemption categories including the 30-euro EEA low-value rule, sandbox test cards and an explained liability shift to the issuer. What I did not find is any fraud-screening tooling exposed to the merchant, the PCI DSS scope per integration type, or network tokens and authorisation-rate reporting. 4 5
The Skeptic
Hosted Checkout and a payment widget are documented, EMV 3-D Secure with frictionless and challenge flows is explained, SCA exemption categories including low-value and transaction risk analysis are written down with the EEA €30 low-value rule, and liability shift is explained per flow. We found no public information on fraud screening, configurable fraud rules, PCI DSS scope per integration type, network tokens, soft-decline retry or authorisation-rate reporting. 4 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
Recurring invoices with interval and end-date configuration, recurring direct debits described as functioning like a subscription payment system, and reminders for late payments are the whole of the evidence, and all of it comes from a business-guide page. I found no public information on card-on-file tokens, merchant-initiated transactions, dunning with smart retries, or any process for exporting payment credentials to another provider. 6
The E-Commerce Lead
Recurring billing appears as invoicing: a business guide documents recurring invoices with first-date, interval and end-of-recurrence settings, reminders for late payments, payment links on invoices, and a line that recurring direct debits are possible with the customer's approval. We found no public information on stored-card tokenisation, SEPA mandate management, dunning or smart retries, or any process for taking payment credentials to another provider. 6
The SaaS Founder
Recurring invoices with a start date, interval and end, reminders for late payments, and direct debits expanded 'with the customer's approval' is invoicing folklore, not billing infrastructure: we found no public information on stored-card merchant-initiated transactions, SEPA mandate management with pre-notification, smart retries or dunning, or any process for exporting payment tokens. Every renewal still depends on the customer acting, which is churn nobody chose. 5 6
The Payments Engineer
Recurring runs through the invoicing tool — recurring invoices with a start date, interval and end date, payment links, and reminders for late payments — with direct debits that can be recurring given customer approval, and a recurring-payment exemption in the 3DS pages implying merchant-initiated charges exist. We found no public information on stored card tokens, mandate management, retries and dunning, or a process for moving payment credentials to another provider. 5 6
The Compliance Officer
Recurring invoices with a start date, interval and end of recurrence, payment links on those invoices, reminders for late payments, and direct debits that with customer approval function as a subscription payment system are documented. I found no public information on stored-card tokens, merchant-initiated transactions, smart retries or dunning, an account updater, or any process for exporting payment credentials to another provider. 6
The Skeptic
Recurring here is an invoicing story: recurring invoices with configurable intervals and reminders for late payments, and direct debits that function as a subscription payment system with the customer's approval. We found no public information on card-on-file merchant-initiated charges, smart retries or dunning, a card account updater, mandate pre-notification, or any documented process for taking payment tokens to another provider. 5 6
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 timing is stated — next-day availability including weekends and holidays — and the payouts API returns dates, fees, references and statuses with deduction records itemised by type, plus CSV export, webhooks, a sandbox, and a business guide on exporting payment data to accounting software. For a clean month-end close I found no public information on per-transaction interchange and scheme fee itemisation, reconciliation to bank lines, idempotency and published rate limits, or a status page. 2 3 7 8
The E-Commerce Lead
The payouts API is properly documented — dates, fees, references and statuses with JSON or CSV export, deduction records for refunds, chargebacks and direct debit returns — plus webhooks, a sandbox, and stated next-day availability of earnings in the business account. We found no public information on settlement currencies, payout schedule configuration, interchange-level fee itemisation, rate limits or idempotency, or a status page, so finance could not close the month from this data. 2 4 5 7
The SaaS Founder
The payouts API lists dates, fees, references and statuses with deduction records for refunds, chargebacks, direct debit returns and balance adjustments, in JSON or CSV, next-day funds availability is stated, and there is a sandbox, webhooks and an accounting-export guide. We found no public information on idempotency, published rate limits, a status page with incident history, or configurable settlement currencies and schedules, so month-end close rests on exports rather than a finance-grade platform. 2 7 8
The Payments Engineer
Next-day availability is stated for the business account, and the payouts endpoint returns dates, fees, references and statuses plus deduction records for refunds, chargebacks and returns in JSON or CSV, with webhooks and a sandbox to build against. But we found no public information on idempotency keys, published rate limits, configurable payout schedules, a status page with incident history, or itemised interchange-level fees tying each payout to its transactions. 2 3 4 5 7
The Compliance Officer
Next-day availability of funds is stated, and a documented payouts API returns dates, fees, references and statuses in JSON or CSV, with deduction records for refunds, chargebacks and direct debit returns, plus webhooks, a sandbox and a guide on exporting payment data to accounting software. I found no public information on configurable payout schedules or settlement currencies, a status page, or idempotency and published rate limits. 2 4 5 7 8
The Skeptic
The payouts endpoint is genuinely useful — dates, fees, references and statuses per payout, deduction records for refunds, chargebacks and direct-debit returns, JSON or CSV export, with webhooks and a sandbox test mode, and next-day availability of funds in the business account. We found no public information on per-transaction interchange itemisation, reconciliation reports that match bank lines, API versioning with idempotency and rate limits, or a public status page. 2 3 4 5 7
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 only terms captured are the US sub-merchant agreement, which permits charged-back amounts to be debited from the merchant, and beyond the trading name I found no public information naming a regulated entity, licence, supervisor or register number. I also found no public information on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve limits and release timelines, chargeback fees, or termination notice periods. 9
The E-Commerce Lead
The only terms captured are a US sub-merchant agreement, which lets charged-back amounts be debited from the merchant without stated limits and references US network rules and a Federal Reserve-linked minimum amount. We found no public information naming the regulated entity, its supervisor or licence, safeguarding of merchant funds, termination notice periods, a dispute process or a PCI attestation. 9
The SaaS Founder
The captured sub-merchant agreement says disputed or charged-back transaction amounts may be debited from the merchant, but we found no public information naming the regulated entity, its supervisor or register number, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve conditions with limits, a termination notice period, or a chargeback dispute route. On a bad day the only written rule I could find is that money can be taken back. 9
The Payments Engineer
The captured sub-merchant agreement permits amounts to be charged back and debited from the merchant and imposes card-network obligations, but we found no public information on a regulated entity, supervisor, licence type or register number, nor on safeguarding, reserve limits, termination notice or a dispute route. The only terms captured sit on the US site and reference the Federal Reserve, leaving the European licensing picture unevidenced. 9
The Compliance Officer
The captured sub-merchant agreement permits disputed transactions to be charged back and debited from the merchant without stated limits or a stated release timeline, and the only terms captured come from a United States sub-merchant agreement page. I found no public information naming the regulated entity with its supervisor and register number, safeguarding of merchant funds, chargeback fees, a dispute process, or a notice period for ordinary termination. 9
The Skeptic
The captured sub-merchant agreement lets the acquirer debit the account when a transaction "is charged back for any reason", with no stated limit, published chargeback fee or dispute process, and no regulated entity, supervisor or register number is stated on the pages we were given. We found no public information on reserve and rolling-hold conditions, termination notice periods, an appeal route, or a PCI DSS attestation. 9
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 independently sourced sovereignty checks left contracting entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, and the one legal document captured is a US sub-merchant agreement. I found no public information on where payment or cardholder data is processed or stored, or on any subprocessor list. 9
The E-Commerce Lead
The vendor's own captured pages give me nothing to assess: jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure for the contracting entity are all unconfirmed on the vendor's pages. We found no public information on where payment and cardholder data are processed or stored, and no subprocessor list, so this is judged on absence alone. 1
The SaaS Founder
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, the group's ownership, where transaction and cardholder data are processed and stored, or any subprocessor list, and the only terms captured are a US-facing sub-merchant agreement. Nothing in these pages lets me verify where my customers' payment data actually lives. 9
The Payments Engineer
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, where transaction and cardholder data are processed or stored, or any subprocessor list; the only captured terms come from the vendor's US site. Nothing in the captured pages lets me verify a European entity or EU data residency. 2 9
The Compliance Officer
Nothing I need to verify is stated anywhere in the captured pages: no contracting or regulated entity, no licence or supervisor, no statement of where transaction and cardholder data are processed or stored, no subprocessor list, and no data-processing agreement distinguishing what the provider handles as processor versus controller. Without the regulated entity and its register number I cannot place any part of this chain in a jurisdiction. 1 9
The Skeptic
Every attribute a buyer needs here — contracting entity jurisdiction, ownership, data residency, subprocessors — is unconfirmed, and the only terms capture is a US-facing sub-merchant agreement pointing at US Visa fee regulation pages. We found no public information on where payment and cardholder data is processed or stored, or on any EU licence behind the European marketing pages. 9
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
The captures state the model — free for the customer, the merchant pays only when taking a card payment, no monthly fixed costs and no minimum revenue — but I found no public rates at all: no percentage or per-transaction fee, no cross-border or conversion markup, and no chargeback or payout fees. A merchant cannot compute an effective fee from anything published in these pages. 2 3
The E-Commerce Lead
The German pricing page tells me there are no monthly fixed costs and no minimum revenue, and that customers pay nothing while I pay only when I accept a card payment — but no rate, percentage or fee figure appears in any capture. We found no public information on per-method rates, cross-border or currency-conversion markups, chargeback, refund or payout fees, or contract terms, so an effective fee cannot be computed from public pages. 2 3
The SaaS Founder
The captured pages say only that the merchant pays when a card payment is accepted, with no monthly fixed costs and minimum revenue, and that the business account and POS basic tier are free. We found no public information on the actual percentage rate, cross-border or currency conversion markups, or chargeback, refund and payout fees, so the effective fee for my card and country mix is unknowable from public pages. 2 3
The Payments Engineer
The captured pages say customers pay nothing, the merchant only pays when a card payment is accepted, there are no monthly fees or minimum turnover, and a printer version costs extra — but no rate for any card type, country or method appears, and cross-border, currency conversion, chargeback and payout fees are unstated. The effective fee for any real card mix is not computable from what is public here. 2 3
The Compliance Officer
No rate appears on any captured page — not a headline percentage, not a per-method price, and not chargeback, refund, payout or currency-conversion fees. The only pricing statements are that customers pay nothing, that merchants carry no monthly fixed costs or minimum turnover, and that a printer version costs extra — so an effective fee for a given card and country mix is not derivable from public pages. 2 3
The Skeptic
The only prices in the captured pages are free things — the business account, the Mastercard, the POS entry tier, "no monthly fixed costs" — while the one cost that matters, the per-transaction rate, is absent, as are cross-border and currency conversion markups, chargeback, refund and payout fees; the Plus POS upgrade and printer version are listed at unspecified "extra cost". We found no public information from which a merchant could compute an effective fee for their own card and country mix. 2 3
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about SumUp
Is SumUp European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where SumUp is based.
Where does SumUp store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does SumUp have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to SumUp?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Adyen (3/5), Mollie (3/5) and Checkout.com (3/5) highest among the other 30 Payment products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Adyen (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: SumUp alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- 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.
- 19 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
- 3 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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 compliance 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 hosting 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
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Payment methods & local coverage — found from sitemap www.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap developer.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Checkout, SCA & fraud — found from sitemap developer.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap www.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap developer.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap www.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.sumup.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →