Payment
Trustly
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Trustly Group AB · trustly.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.
Trustly at a glance
- Vendor
- Trustly Group AB
- 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 Trustly 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Trustly's captured pages describe a single-rail payment product — direct bank transfer marketed across 33+ markets — with the only named country list, the United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar, attached to a BACS Direct Debit recurring flow built for North American merchants. 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
Trustly's captured pages describe a single-rail payment product — direct bank transfer marketed across 33+ markets — with the only named country list, the United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar, attached to a BACS Direct Debit recurring flow built for North American merchants. The bench's scoring is uneven. Recurring billing is the strongest category at 5-6, crediting documented mandates, mandatory pre-capture notification emails, retries capped at two within a 30-day window, BACS failure reason codes, CSV-over-SFTP mandate import and an 80% recovery claim. Settlement and reconciliation follows at 4-6, on daily reports by 10:00 AM Eastern and a JSON-RPC API with sandbox and event notifications. The weakest readings are pricing transparency, a flat 0 with no published rate or fee, and sovereignty at 0-1, where contracting jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessors are recorded as unknown and the only entity named with a register number is San Francisco-based Trustly, Inc. (NMLS 2463855). Checkout and SCA spans 2-4: the finance lead credited bank-side verification and outcome claims, while the others found no fraud rules or SCA exemption handling exposed to the merchant.
Speaks for it
- Recurring billing scored 5-6 — BACS Direct Debit mandates with mandatory pre-notification emails and retries capped at two within a 30-day window.
- Funding and Settlement Reconciliation reports are delivered daily by 10:00 AM Eastern via portal or SFTP, in a fixed format with sequence numbers and trail totals.
- A JSON-RPC API is documented with a sandbox, dev docs and mandatory event notifications for mandate and transaction status.
- Mandate import runs via CSV over SFTP, alongside an 80% recovery claim on failed recurring payments and machine-learned collection-day prediction.
- The service level agreement commits to 99.9% monthly uptime with tiered response times from 60 minutes for critical errors.
Held against it
- No public pricing of any kind — pricing transparency scored 0-0 with every rate a sales conversation.
- Payment methods scored 1-2, with direct bank transfer the only documented method family and no per-country method or currency list.
- Sovereignty scored 0-1, with contracting jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure recorded as unknown.
- The only entity named with a licence number is US-based Trustly, Inc. (NMLS 2463855); we found no public information on an EU entity, its supervisor or register number.
- Checkout and SCA scored 2-4, with a 0.012% fraud claim given as a marketing figure and no fraud rules, risk scores or SCA exemption handling a merchant can inspect.
Best for
- You collect recurring subscription payments from UK consumer bank accounts and want a documented BACS Direct Debit flow with CSV mandate import and retry handling.
- Your finance team depends on daily fixed-format reconciliation and funding reports tied batch-by-batch to funds transferred to your bank.
- Your engineers want a JSON-RPC API published with sandbox, dev docs and event notifications for mandate and transaction status.
Avoid if
- You need a published price before talking to sales — pricing transparency scored 0 with no variation.
- You accept cards, wallets or SEPA Direct Debit today — payment methods scored 1-2 with direct bank transfer the only documented method family.
- You must name an EU regulated entity, its supervisor and a subprocessor list in your own compliance file before signing.
- You bill continental subscribers on SEPA mandates — the documented recurring flow's supported geographies are the United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Payment methods & local coverage | 1 of 5 |
| Checkout, SCA & fraud | 1 of 5 |
| Subscriptions & recurring payments | 3 of 5 |
| Settlement, reconciliation & API | 2.5 of 5 |
| Licence, risk & account terms | 1.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0 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
Trustly sells a single-rails story — direct bank transfer — and beyond a '33+ markets' claim and payouts 'across any border in Europe', the captured pages give market counts rather than a per-country, per-currency method list; only the recurring product's geographies (the UK, Guernsey, Jersey, Gibraltar) are stated. I found no public information on card, wallet or SEPA Direct Debit acceptance, so I cannot plan per-market acceptance from this. 1 3
The E-Commerce Lead
Direct bank transfer is the one method family the pages describe, marketed across 33+ markets with no named local methods per country, and the only country list anywhere — the United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar — belongs to a BACS mandate flow built for North American merchants. For planning conversion market by market I get a market count, not a list, and we found no public information on card or wallet acceptance or on SEPA Direct Debit for my eight countries. 1 3 6
The SaaS Founder
Everything documented is account-to-account: direct bank transfers claimed across 33+ markets, with no public list of which methods, countries and currencies each market covers. The one mandate network documented in detail is UK BACS Direct Debit serving the United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar; we found no public information on SEPA Direct Debit, cards, wallets or named local methods such as iDEAL or Bancontact. 1 3
The Payments Engineer
The only method family in evidence is direct bank transfer, marketed across "33+ markets" with no per-country list of methods, currencies or per-method refund and recurring support; the one named geographic coverage is BACS Direct Debit recurring for the United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar. I found no public information on cards, wallets or SEPA Direct Debit. 1 3
The Compliance Officer
The product is a single method family — direct bank transfer marketed as Pay by Bank across "33+ markets" — with countries named only for one flow (United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar via the BACS network). I found no public information on card or wallet acceptance, on SEPA Direct Debit, or on which countries, currencies and banks each market's transfer flow actually covers. 1 3
The Skeptic
The offer is essentially one method — direct bank transfer — promoted as "33+ markets" with no named list of which countries and currencies that covers, and we found no public information on cards, wallets, SEPA Direct Debit or named local methods. The only country list captured is for the UK recurring product: United Kingdom, Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar. 1 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
Verification happens at the bank side via bank app or eID, with Azura machine-learning scoring, KYC data services and outcome claims like a 99.6% payment success rate and a 0.012% fraud figure, plus checkout guidelines listed in the docs. I found no public information on hosted versus embedded checkout options, exemption strategy or liability shift per flow. 1 2
The E-Commerce Lead
The pages sell checkout speed hard — conversion rates of 98%, a fraud risk "as low as 0.012%", a risk-management solution and user verification via bank app or eID — but we found no public information on hosted versus embedded checkout, 3-D Secure, SCA exemption handling, or how declined payments are treated. As a conversion owner I cannot tell from this whether the challenge fires only when it must, or even what the customer-facing flow looks like. 1 2 6
The SaaS Founder
The captured pages describe a bank-app or eID verification flow, the Azura engine's speed and conversion claims, KYC enrichment and a stated fraud rate of 0.012% — marketing-grade figures with no fraud rules, risk scores or liability shift exposed to the merchant. We found no public information on 3-D Secure, SCA exemptions or declined-payment handling; the nearest operational evidence is mandatory event notifications for transaction and mandate status. 1 2 3
The Payments Engineer
Checkout is a bank-redirect with published guidelines and risk positioned through Open Banking/KYC data plus a claimed 0.012% fraud rate, but I found no public information on hosted versus embedded options, SCA exemptions, 3-D Secure, fraud rules or risk scores exposed to the merchant, or PCI scope for any integration type. The only decline handling documented is for recurring debits — reason codes, retry limits and day-of-collection optimisation. 1 2 3
The Compliance Officer
The pages describe a bank-app or eID verification flow with "no manual input" and quote a fraud rate "as low as 0.012%", but that is a marketing figure rather than documented screening the merchant can inspect or configure. I found no public information on SCA exemption handling, on fraud rules or risk scores exposed to the merchant, on liability shift, or on the compliance scope of each integration type. 1 2
The Skeptic
Checkout is a bank-app flow with eID verification and a fraud claim of "0.012%" given with no mechanism, rules or risk scores a merchant can inspect; we found no public information on hosted versus embedded options, SCA exemption handling, declined-payment handling or PCI scope. Fraud screening appears as a marketing number, not tooling the merchant configures. 1 2
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
This is their strongest ground: verified bank-account mandates, mandatory pre-notification and mandate-confirmation emails, a five-day BACS cycle, failure reason codes, representment capped at two retries within thirty days, an 80% recovery claim on failed recurring payments, and CSV mandate import over SFTP. The documented mandate flow is UK-only, and I found no public information on exporting stored mandates to another provider, or on trials and proration. 2 3
The E-Commerce Lead
Recurring collection is documented in real depth: bank-account mandates with mandatory confirmation and pre-capture notification emails, collection on my cadence, retries capped at two within a 30-day representment window, BACS failure reason codes, CSV mandate import, and a claimed 80% recovery rate on failed payments plus machine-learned best collection day. What caps it for me is geography and exits — the documented mandate flow runs on the UK BACS network for North American merchants with we found no public information on SEPA mandates for continental markets, nothing on trials or proration, and no documented process for taking stored mandates to another provider. 2 3
The SaaS Founder
This is the strongest area: mandates drawn from verified bank accounts, automated setup, scheduled charges with mandatory pre-notification emails, direct-debit failure reason codes, representment capped at two retries inside a 30-day window and a claimed 80% recovery rate on failed recurring payments — that is real dunning, not notification spam. The mandate network evidenced is BACS only; we found no public information on SEPA mandates, stored cards, trials, proration or plan changes, and the documented CSV-over-SFTP mandate import covers migration in, with no stated format or timeline for taking mandates to another provider. 1 2 3
The Payments Engineer
Recurring is clearly the flagship: BACS mandate creation with required pre-notification emails, import via CSV over SFTP, failure reason codes, a two-retry/30-day representment limit and intelligent day selection with an 80% recovery claim. I found no public information on trials, proration or plan changes, SEPA mandate handling for the continent, or a documented process for exporting mandates or tokens to another provider. 2 3
The Compliance Officer
Recurring collection is clearly a core product: BACS mandates with mandatory confirmation and pre-notification emails, fixed and variable charge flows, representment capped at two retries within a 30-day window, granular failure reason codes, mandate import via CSV over SFTP, and a claimed 80% recovery of failed payments with machine-learned collection timing. I found no public information on trials, proration or plan changes, an account updater, SEPA mandate handling, or any process for exporting mandates or stored credentials to another provider. 2 3
The Skeptic
Mandates are real and documented — UK BACS Direct Debit, mandate import by CSV over SFTP, mandatory pre-capture notification emails, retries capped at two within a 30-day window, full failure reason codes — plus collection-day prediction and an 80% recovery claim. But we found no public information on trials, proration or plan changes, no card account updater, no documented way to move mandates out to another provider, and no SEPA mandate support. 2 3
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 reporting layer is real — a Funding Report tying each batch sent to my bank account to its transactions, a Settlement Reconciliation file with header and trail totals, daily availability by 10:00 AM Eastern Time, SFTP delivery, and a documented JSON-RPC API with sandbox and event notifications. What I need most is missing: I found no public information on payout frequency or delay, and no per-transaction fee breakdown, so fees arrive netted into whatever lands in the account. 1 4 5
The E-Commerce Lead
The reporting side is concrete: a Funding Report listing funds transferred and the transactions in each batch sent to my bank, settlement and RTP reconciliation reports available daily by 10:00 AM Eastern via portal or SFTP with a fully specified file format, and a documented JSON-RPC API with sandbox and event notifications. But we found no public information on payout frequency or delay to the merchant, per-transaction fee breakdown, API versioning, rate limits, or accounting integrations, so finance cannot close the month from this alone. 1 3 4 5
The SaaS Founder
Reconciliation is genuinely engineered: Funding and Settlement Reconciliation reports land daily by 10:00 AM Eastern via portal download or SFTP, in header/transaction/trail file formats with sequence numbers and totals, and the Funding Report ties each batch to the funds sent to the merchant's bank account, over a JSON-RPC API with sandbox and event notifications. We found no public information on payout frequency or delay, per-transaction fee breakdowns, accounting integrations, or API versioning and rate limits. 1 4 5
The Payments Engineer
There is a real finance surface: a JSON-RPC API with sandbox and dev docs, event notifications for mandate and transaction status, a status page, a 99.9% uptime SLA, and reconciliation and funding reports delivered daily via portal or SFTP that tie batched funds to their transactions in a documented fixed-width format. I found no public information on payout frequency and delay, per-transaction fee breakdowns, or the API versioning, idempotency keys and rate limits a finance build depends on. 1 3 4 5 7
The Compliance Officer
Reconciliation is genuinely documented: reports daily by 10:00 AM Eastern Time, a Funding Report tying every batch to funds moved to the merchant's bank account, a fixed-format Reconciliation & Funding file with header, transaction and trail records and totals, SFTP delivery, plus a JSON-RPC API with sandbox and mandatory event notifications, a status page and a 99.9% monthly availability commitment. I found no public information on per-transaction fee itemisation, configurable payout schedules or settlement currencies, API idempotency or rate limits, or accounting integrations. 1 3 4 5 7
The Skeptic
Reporting is the strongest part: a Funding Report that ties transferred funds to their transaction batches, fixed-format reconciliation files with sequence numbers and trail totals, daily delivery by 10:00 AM Eastern, SFTP and portal delivery, and a JSON-RPC API with sandbox and event notifications. We found no public information on payout frequency or delay to the merchant, settlement currencies, per-transaction fee breakdowns, API versioning, idempotency or rate limits. 1 3 4 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
A US entity with an NMLS number and a consumer complaint contact is published, and an SLA fixes uptime at 99.9% with eight-hour notice of scheduled downtime and tiered response times. I found no public information on the EU regulated entity, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or rolling-hold conditions with limits, or termination notice and appeal — the terms a bad day turns on. 6 7
The E-Commerce Lead
The only regulated entity named on the captured pages is Trustly, Inc. (NMLS 2463855) at 535 Mission St, San Francisco, on the US licensing page, and the service-level agreement commits to 99.9% monthly uptime, eight-hour notice of scheduled downtime and tiered response times. We found no public information on an EU licence or supervisor, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserve or rolling-hold conditions, freeze and termination terms, chargeback fees, or any dispute process. 6 7
The SaaS Founder
The captured licence page names Trustly, Inc. (NMLS 2463855) of 535 Mission St, San Francisco with a consumer complaint route, and the service level agreement commits to 99.9% monthly uptime with tiered response times. We found no public information on the EU regulated entity, its supervisor or register number, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserves, chargeback fees, or termination notice and appeal. 6 7
The Payments Engineer
The only regulated entity surfaced is Trustly, Inc. (NMLS 2463855) in a US consumer-complaint notice, alongside an SLA with tiered response times and eight-hour scheduled-downtime notice. I found no public information on an EU licence or supervisor, safeguarding of merchant funds, reserves or rolling holds, termination notice, or chargeback fees and a dispute process. 6 7
The Compliance Officer
The only regulated entity I found named with a register number is Trustly, Inc. (NMLS 2463855) of 535 Mission St, San Francisco, on the US and Canada licence page, alongside a service level agreement committing to 99.9% availability with defined incident response times. For Europe I found no public information naming the licensed entity, its supervisor or register number, nor on safeguarding of merchant funds, reserves, termination notice, dispute or chargeback terms. 6 7
The Skeptic
The only regulated entity captured is Trustly, Inc. (NMLS 2463855), 535 Mission St Floor 18, Office 1825, CA 94105 — a US licence on a US and Canada licences page — and we found no public information on an EU entity holding a European merchant's funds, its supervisor or register number. The SLA states uptime and response times, but on reserves, fund freezes, termination notice and chargeback or dispute fees we found no public information. 6 7
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 only licence page captured names Trustly, Inc. of San Francisco with a California address and NMLS number. I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where payment and customer data are processed or stored, or any subprocessor list with locations. 6
The E-Commerce Lead
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, where payment or cardholder data is processed, or any subprocessor list, and the one named licensed entity in the captured pages is the California-incorporated Trustly, Inc. A "Trustly European platform architecture" with EU endpoints is described for integration purposes, but nothing in the evidence states where data is processed and stored. 3 6
The SaaS Founder
The only regulated entity the captured pages name is US-incorporated Trustly, Inc. in California, and the independently sourced sovereignty attributes came back unknown for contracting jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and subprocessors. We found no public information on where payment and customer data are processed or stored, and no subprocessor list with locations. 6
The Payments Engineer
The captured evidence establishes nothing on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, data residency or subprocessors, and says nothing about where payment and cardholder data are processed. The only directional signals are a "Trustly European platform architecture" named in the developer docs and a US entity (Trustly, Inc.) handling consumer complaints. 3 6
The Compliance Officer
I found no public information on the contracting or EU licensed entity, on where transaction and customer data are processed or stored, on named infrastructure, on subprocessors, or on a data processing agreement separating processor from controller roles — the only named regulated entity is the California-registered one, and the report schedule and downtime windows are quoted in Eastern and Pacific time. A passing reference to a "Trustly European platform architecture" is the sole European signal, with nothing published on data location behind it. 3 4 6 7
The Skeptic
Contracting jurisdiction, ownership, data residency and the subprocessor list are all unrecorded, and the only entity named with a licence number is the US company. A reference to the "Trustly European platform architecture" tells me an EU codebase exists, not where payment data is processed, stored or who sits behind it. 3 6
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 captured pages carry conversion, recovery and setup-speed claims but not a single price — no percentage, transaction fee, chargeback fee, payout fee or minimum. Every rate would be a sales conversation, and I cannot compute an effective cost for any volume or country mix. 1 2
The E-Commerce Lead
We found no published price on any captured page — not a percentage, a fixed fee, a currency-conversion markup, a chargeback fee, a payout fee or a monthly minimum — and the recurring pitch describes a "low-cost, high-stability billing channel" without a single number. Every effective-rate question is a sales conversation, so I cannot compute what this costs my mix of countries and methods. 1 2 3
The SaaS Founder
No public price appears on any captured page — no percentage, fixed fee, chargeback fee, payout fee, monthly minimum or contract term — and the only cost statements are qualitative, such as a "low-cost, high-stability billing channel". The effective fee for my card- and country-mix is a sales conversation. 1 2 3
The Payments Engineer
No price appears anywhere in the captured pages — no rates per method, no cross-border or currency conversion markups, and no chargeback, refund, payout or monthly fees — only a qualitative "low-cost" description of the BACS channel. 1 3
The Compliance Officer
I found no public information on pricing of any kind: no percentage, per-transaction fee, chargeback cost, payout fee or monthly fee appears on the marketing, product, developer or service-level pages captured. A merchant cannot compute even a headline effective rate from what is published, so every rate is a sales conversation. 1 2 7
The Skeptic
We found no public price on the captured pages — no headline rate, no per-method fee, no chargeback, refund, payout or monthly fee — only a "low-cost, high-stability billing channel" claim for the BACS product. A merchant cannot compute even a rough effective fee from these pages; every rate is a sales conversation. 1 2
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Trustly
Is Trustly European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Trustly is based.
Where does Trustly store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Trustly have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Trustly?
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: Trustly 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.
- 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.
- We could not confirm any pricing information on the vendor’s own pages as captured, so this page shows none rather than a statement we cannot stand behind. Know more? Tell us
- 12 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
- 10 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 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
- 3 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (7)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page trustly.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap www.trustly.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Subscriptions & recurring payments — found from sitemap amer.developers.trustly.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap amer.developers.trustly.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Settlement, reconciliation & API — found from sitemap amer.developers.trustly.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.trustly.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Licence, risk & account terms — found from sitemap www.trustly.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →