Crypto on- and off-ramps like Transak and MoonPay are a must-have for any serious Web3 developer, linking their decentralized applications to the traditional financial system to smooth the onboarding process for new users.
The two platforms are probably the best-known crypto on-ramps on the market today, enabling users to buy hundreds of cryptocurrency tokens instantly, with flexible payment options that cater to millions of users globally. However, a close examination of the two platforms reveals some stark differences between the two, and we believe there’s a convincing case to be made for Transak being the better of the two.
Why Integrate A Crypto On-Ramp?
By integrating a crypto on-ramp, Web3 dApps make it easy for people to swap fiat currency for the digital assets that power their own ecosystems. Users can purchase crypto in seconds, without having to go through a third-party, saving themselves time and hassle.
Similarly, a crypto off-ramp helps those users to exchange the cryptocurrency they own within the dApp for fiat and have the amount deposited directly into their bank accounts.
More developers realize the benefits of integrating a simple onboarding process into their dApps. They allow people to start interacting with their services with minimal hassle, condensing the process of purchasing crypto into a few simple clicks. This can have a significant impact on dApp user retention rates, because buying crypto the old-fashioned way via an exchange can often seem a bit overwhelming.
Transak’s Key Advantages:
Although MoonPay and Transak provide what is essentially the same kind of service, there are a number of important differences between the two that developers should consider when choosing an onboarding partner. For instance, the list of supported digital assets is different, as is the range of fiat options available. Payment methods also vary between the two platforms, and there are other factors such as their KYC processes, ease of use, regional support, fees, integration processes and so on.
Let’s take a closer look at these differences, and highlight why Transak – generally – is the better option.
Better Cryptocurrency Support
There’s little point in giving users the option to buy crypto in-app if they cannot get the tokens they need. To that end, perhaps the most important consideration is the number, and type, of tokens the on-ramp supports.
MoonPay and Transak both enable users to buy more than one hundred different cryptocurrencies directly with fiat, but the latter service stands out as the clear winner. Transak offers support for 173 cryptocurrencies in total, including all of the top-tier tokens like Bitcoin, Ethereum, USDC, USDT, Solana and so on. MoonPay also supports most major cryptocurrencies, but with just 123 supported tokens in total, it clearly falls short with regards to some of the lesser-known digital assets.
Superior Fiat Currency Support
Wide support for different types of fiat is essential for any dApp that’s targeting a global audience, which is why Transak once again comes out ahead with its support for 76 local currencies. By integrating Transak with their dApps, developers will make life easier for more users in more countries.
MoonPay is some way behind with its support for just 34 traditional currencies, though that won’t be a concern for any localized dApps that target specific countries or regions, so long as the main currencies they need are supported.
Wider Regional Support
Transak also comes out ahead in terms of regional support – or in other words, the number of countries where it can offer its services. All told, Transak can be used for crypto-to-fiat and fiat-to-crypto swaps in 169 supported countries.
To be fair on MoonPay, it isn’t far behind its major rival, offering support for 158 nations, although we should point out that number is somewhat ambiguous, because it only provides a list of unsupported countries.
More On-Ramp Payment Methods
In general, the more payment methods an on-ramp supports, the better it is for end users. After all, people like to have their options. Many people only ever use their credit cards, for instance, while there are others who these days swear by their mobile banking apps. Others prefer services such as Apple Pay and Google Pay due to the way these can easily be linked to their bank accounts.
Transak has more payment options, simple as that. In total it lists 17 different payment methods through which users can purchase crypto, including MasterCard, Visa and Maestro credit and debit cards, bank transfers, Apple Pay, Google Pay and SEPA Instant.
MoonPay currently offers users just 8 payment methods, though it does at least support PayPal, which is not currently available through Transak.
Lower Transaction Fees
Transaction fees can be a key consideration for many users, particularly those who like to play Web3 games, where microtransactions (for buying in-game items, weapons and so on) are very common. After all, no one wants to see their hard-earned gaming rewards get eaten up by fees when they’re trying to cash out.
Transak offers the better deal, with flexible fees of between 0.99% to over 5%, depending on the type of fiat currency, the user’s location and the payout method chosen. While it won’t always be cheaper, MoonPay’s flat 4.5% fee, or alternatively a $5 minimum on lower-value withdrawals, means there’s a lot less scope for users trying to keep those fees to a minimum. It’s especially expensive for those wanting to withdraw small amounts.
Easier KYC
We think Transak has the edge here too, thanks to the flexible nature of its Light KYC process. For those who only ever buy and sell small amounts of cryptocurrency, the onboarding process is a breeze, as they’ll only ever need to provide their name and address – no ID required.
Transak’s level two verification is a bit more complex, with users required to submit proof of address, a form of ID and go through a liveness test, but they’ll extend their transaction limits to $20,000 by doing so. For unlimited transactions, users must proceed to level three and provide additional documentation.
With its incremental KYC process, MoonPay is not quite so convenient, with users subject to sudden checks once their transactions reach a certain limit. It’s a less flexible model that will eventually ensure everybody has to go through the hassles of submitting IDs, and it could cause users to become unstuck if they don’t realize they’re about to reach their transaction limit while they’re outside, unable to get the required documents quickly.
MoonPay’s Advantages:
Transak isn’t always the better service, for there are a couple of areas in which MoonPay appears to have the edge on its rival, although its advantages are certainly fewer.
More Off-Ramp Payout Methods
MoonPay’s biggest advantage comes in terms of payout options, when users decide it’s time to cash out their crypto and change it back into fiat. Payout options are important, because while many crypto users firmly believe that it’s the future of money, that future hasn’t arrived yet.
Neither MoonPay nor Transak supports that many payout options, certainly not in comparison to their support payment methods. MoonPay offers a somewhat meager 6 supported payout options, including debit cards, SEPA, SEPA Instant, PayPal, UK Faster Payments and ACH Payments. Still, it’s better than Transak, which supports a total of just 3 payout methods – SEPA, SEPA Instant and Faster Bank Transfer.
MoonPay’s superior payout options aren’t always so quick, however, as it only enables instant fiat deposits to PayPal and SEPA Instant, with the other methods taking between 1-3 days.
Transparent Affiliate Rewards
MoonPay might be a better choice for developers who believe they can get a decent passive income from referrals to other Web3 projects. The company offers to pay flexible affiliate fees of between 0.5% and 1.25% on every transaction processed by a referred user. What’s more, affiliates are free to adjust this fee.
Transak does have an affiliate program too, but it’s much less transparent and it’s not flexible. The company says affiliates will earn a fixed commission on each transaction, but it doesn’t specify any numbers, so it’s less clear how profitable it might be for developers.
Conclusion
The above comparison details a number of important reasons why Transak is the better of the two platforms. That’s not to bash MoonPay. Both platforms have had overwhelmingly good reviews on sites like TrustPilot, with the majority of users expressing satisfaction with the speed and simplicity both offer.
However, for developers, there are other considerations besides the user experience. Transak therefore stands out as a superior option, not only because of its simplicity, but because it caters to a wider range of users, in more countries, with support for more tokens and fiat, and generally lower costs.
A final note for developers is that it’s important to be as flexible as possible to make life easier for every dApp user, and it’s clear that Transak’s greater adaptability and extensive optionality make it more appealing to a broader segment of users.