1
Confirm the software
List the register, gateway, invoicing, accounting and industry tools that must work. A rate is irrelevant if the account cannot support the required workflow.
Choose the pricing model that fits the way money reaches your register.
Flat-rate, subscription and interchange-plus pricing solve different problems. The honest comparison starts with average ticket, transaction count, monthly volume and the software the business cannot operate without.
No model wins every workload · Published pricing is not an underwritten offer
The three models, without pretending they are interchangeable
| Model | How margin is collected | Where it genuinely wins | What to watch |
|---|---|---|---|
| Flat rate | One blended price conceals the underlying interchange and assessment cost. | Very low-volume businesses, proprietary software ecosystems, and unusually expensive card mixes. | The provider keeps more spread when the actual wholesale card cost is low, and a fixed transaction charge can weigh heavily on small tickets. |
| Subscription | A fixed monthly membership plus a transaction charge, commonly with no percentage markup. | Very high dollar volume divided among very few transactions. | The subscription remains due in slow months and can overwhelm lower or seasonal volume. |
| Interchange-plus | Wholesale interchange and assessments pass through; the processor markup is stated separately. | Businesses that want card costs exposed and account markup comparable. | The approved markup still depends on underwriting, and a specialised integration may matter more than rate alone. |
This compares processor markup and monthly fees only. Interchange and card-brand assessments are set by the card networks, apply equally to all providers, and are not included.
Flat rate wins when the bundle is worth more than the spread
Square and Stripe make setup and reconciliation simple by blending wholesale card costs and processor margin into one price. A very small merchant may reasonably value quick onboarding and an integrated product more than statement-level cost separation. A business built around proprietary register, scheduling or marketplace software may also find that switching payments creates more operational expense than a lower markup saves.
The specific transaction where flat rate can beat this target account
If a customer pays with an ultra-premium corporate, international or other card whose raw interchange and assessments exceed the flat-rate provider’s fixed selling price, the provider absorbs the shortfall. On that transaction, flat rate acts as a cap and beats interchange-plus pricing, including the target account described here.
That advantage depends on actual card mix. With ordinary debit and consumer cards, the same blended price can leave a much wider processor spread concealed inside the rate.
Subscription pricing wins when volume is enormous and transaction count is tiny
A fixed membership can beat even a thin percentage markup when a business collects a few very large invoices.
Example workload
$500,000 in card volume at a $25,000 average ticket produces 20 transactions in the pricing model.
Target account
The target markup produces $251.00 in monthly processor markup and fees.
Stax
The least expensive modelled competitor costs $200.60 on the same workload.
Here, the subscription model is less expensive by $50.40 a month. That is a real concession, not an edge case hidden from the table. A wholesaler or professional firm collecting a handful of very large invoices should test subscription pricing carefully.
This compares processor markup and monthly fees only. Interchange and card-brand assessments are set by the card networks, apply equally to all providers, and are not included.
Interchange-plus wins on legibility; the final offer still decides price
Dharma and Helcim use the same transparent structure: wholesale card costs pass through, and their margin is stated above them. They are credible alternatives. Their published pricing can be more expensive than the target account while their software, integration coverage or underwriting decision may still make them the better fit.
A more typical card-present workload
$20,000 in volume at a $50 average ticket produces 400 transactions.
Target account estimate
$30.00 in monthly processor markup and fees.
Closest modelled competitor
$62.00 from Dharma.
The account markup is a target, never a promise or guarantee. Pcnaid submits the application at that target; the processor’s underwriting department assigns the final rate. A competitor can win if its underwriters assess the business differently or if its specialised integration avoids meaningful operating work.
This compares processor markup and monthly fees only. Interchange and card-brand assessments are set by the card networks, apply equally to all providers, and are not included.
A decision order that keeps the rate in proportion
2
Use the real transaction shape
Compare monthly volume, average ticket, entry method and seasonality. One high-volume month does not describe a full year.
3
Compare final paper
Published targets are useful for screening. The processor agreement, approved markup, equipment terms and closure provisions are what govern the account.
Test the models against your own transaction shape.
The calculator uses identical volume and transaction counts for every model. Its output estimates markup only and is never an underwritten quote.
Applying carries no obligation. Underwriting, approval and final rates are determined by the processor.
Not sure this is the right account? See every way to apply →