PayBrokers publishes a unified merchant API covering Pix, Cash Out, KYC and One Cent Check.
Good
Editorial assessment, not a live-tested payment performance benchmark.
How this is calculatedDeposit fee
Not disclosed
Payout speed
Not disclosed
Currencies
Not disclosed
Regions
1 region
Supported regionsLATAMPayBrokers publishes a unified merchant API covering Pix, Cash Out, KYC and One Cent Check. Its integration page describes HMAC-signed webhook notifications for transaction events. These are distinct functions within a Brazil-focused payment stack; settlement terms and regulated-betting onboarding need direct confirmation rather than an assumed generic instant-payout guarantee.
LATAM operators evaluating payment gateway services with country-specific approval.
Verticals served
Strengths
Trade-offs
Figures marked “Not disclosed” have no public source. Most iGaming payment pricing is negotiated per merchant — we leave the gap visible rather than estimating.How we handle sources
Licences
Not disclosed
iGaming stance
The official source describes the product and its use case. This is not an independently measured market-share or performance ranking.
Worth knowing: Local licensing, operator eligibility and the payment-account structure must be confirmed.
Primary-source review: 5 October 2026. This is documentary research, not live payment testing. Provider claims are identified separately from documented terms.
The current API introduction describes a Pix-centred financial ecosystem for regulated Brazilian iGaming, with core-banking, fraud and operational support. It also mentions fiat/crypto settlement; that requires route-specific contracting and verification. Official source.
The integration page describes secure tokens and HMAC-signed webhooks. Validate notification authenticity and query transaction status instead of crediting a player solely from a browser return. Official source.
The APIs combine payment operations, KYC and bank-account checks. Advertised daily volume and monthly turnover are provider claims, not independent acceptance or uptime measurements.
Primary evidence for the industry use case or acceptance policy. Regional tags are evaluation coverage, not blanket gambling approval.
Checked 5 October 2026
Checked 5 October 2026
Seven weighted factors produce 7.2. The heaviest is derived from the stance above, not scored by hand.
Regulatory assessment · 21 October 2026
5.5/10: a current authorisation for the contracting entity was not independently confirmed in the published evidence. The criterion is capped at 5.5 under the unverified-authorisation rubric. This is an evidence limitation, not a finding that the company is unlicensed or unlawful. For schemes and technical platforms, check the actual regulated PSP or acquirer rather than assuming the platform holds its authorisation.
Compliance criterion revised from 7.0 to 5.5 after the evidence review. Other criterion inputs were not changed.
iGaming acceptancederived
What we assess for iGaming acceptanceWhether gambling merchants are onboarded at allWhether the category is core business or a tolerated exceptionMarket-by-market acceptance, not just technical coverageWhether access runs through a scheme participant rather than a contract10.0 × 20% = 2.00
Regulatory & compliance
What we assess for Regulatory & complianceJurisdictions served and licences heldOwn acquiring licence versus a sponsor bankRegulator-imposed payment controls supportedTrack record in regulated markets5.5 × 20% = 1.10
Fees
What we assess for FeesPublished rate cards where they existWhether pricing is knowable before contractingFX spread disclosureRolling reserves and settlement float6.0 × 15% = 0.90
Geography
What we assess for GeographyNumber of markets servedDepth of local methods within eachCurrency listWhether coverage means availability for this category5.5 × 15% = 0.83
Settlement
What we assess for SettlementDeposit-to-balance timeWithdrawal-to-player timeWeekend and holiday behaviourWhether the provider or the scheme sets the limit8.0 × 10% = 0.80
Integration & API
What we assess for Integration & APIAPI and documentation qualitySDKs, plugins and platform connectorsTime from contract to first live transactionSandbox and testing tooling8.5 × 10% = 0.85
Reliability & support
What we assess for Reliability & supportObserved uptime and incident historyStatus page and incident communicationSupport model and escalation pathReconciliation and reporting tooling7.5 × 10% = 0.75
| Factor | Score | Weight | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
iGaming acceptancederivedWhat we assess for iGaming acceptanceWhether gambling merchants are onboarded at allWhether the category is core business or a tolerated exceptionMarket-by-market acceptance, not just technical coverageWhether access runs through a scheme participant rather than a contract | 10.0 | 20% | 2.00 |
Regulatory & complianceWhat we assess for Regulatory & complianceJurisdictions served and licences heldOwn acquiring licence versus a sponsor bankRegulator-imposed payment controls supportedTrack record in regulated markets | 5.5 | 20% | 1.10 |
FeesWhat we assess for FeesPublished rate cards where they existWhether pricing is knowable before contractingFX spread disclosureRolling reserves and settlement float | 6.0 | 15% | 0.90 |
GeographyWhat we assess for GeographyNumber of markets servedDepth of local methods within eachCurrency listWhether coverage means availability for this category | 5.5 | 15% | 0.83 |
SettlementWhat we assess for SettlementDeposit-to-balance timeWithdrawal-to-player timeWeekend and holiday behaviourWhether the provider or the scheme sets the limit | 8.0 | 10% | 0.80 |
Integration & APIWhat we assess for Integration & APIAPI and documentation qualitySDKs, plugins and platform connectorsTime from contract to first live transactionSandbox and testing tooling | 8.5 | 10% | 0.85 |
Reliability & supportWhat we assess for Reliability & supportObserved uptime and incident historyStatus page and incident communicationSupport model and escalation pathReconciliation and reporting tooling | 7.5 | 10% | 0.75 |
| Composite | 7.2 | ||
Local account-to-account
Currencies
Not disclosed
Payment methods
Pix, Cash Out product
Verticals
SDKs, plugins and connectors
Unified PayBrokers API, KYC and One Cent Check, HMAC-signed webhooks
No third-party rating sourced for PayBrokers yet. When one is added it will name its source — Trustpilot, G2 or similar — and the date it was read, in the same way every other figure on this site does.
FAQ
Gambling is the provider's core business, not a tolerated vertical. The official source describes the product and its use case. This is not an independently measured market-share or performance ranking.
LATAM. Coverage is where the rails reach — confirm acceptance for your specific licence separately, because the two are not the same thing.
We have no public rate card for PayBrokers. No merchant-specific public figure verified in this research pass; request written terms. Ask for cost per successfully funded account under your own volume and market split rather than a headline rate.
Local licensing, operator eligibility and the payment-account structure must be confirmed.
The score is calculated from seven weighted criteria. See the scorecard on this page for the current criterion values, weights and total, and the methodology for the formula.
7.2
Good
Consider for the stated use case after verifying licensing fit and both payment directions. Local licensing, operator eligibility and the payment-account structure must be confirmed.
Best forLATAM operators evaluating payment gateway services with country-specific approval.
Closest by category and score, from the same catalog and the same model.
KoraAcceptedKora's current platform provides localised checkout, collections and disbursements, with bank and mobile-wallet routes.Same category as PayBrokers · scores the same7.2
Pay4FunCore verticalPay4Fun's merchant developer page separates its payment APIs and identifies Pay4Fun GO as a gateway for direct deposits to the merchant website.Same category as PayBrokers · scores the same7.2
Peach PaymentsCore verticalPeach Payments has a dedicated betting offering alongside its card, bank and local payment portfolio.Same category as PayBrokers · scores the same7.2Put PayBrokers next to an alternative
Opens the comparison tool with PayBrokers already selected — add up to three more.
Compare PayBrokersReview updated
Terms and availability can change. Confirm current merchant-specific conditions before contracting.
