METHODOLOGY

How we check these cards

These are the rules we set for ourselves. They are here so you can hold us to them.

Where it stands: we track 5 cards, and 5 of them have had every published fee checked line by line against the issuer's own documentation. No field anywhere on this site holds an estimated figure.

Fees last checked 2026-08-04

Six rules, no exceptions.

Breaking any one of them means this site got it wrong. Tell us if we do.

01 Figures come from the issuer, or not at all	Every fee has to be traceable to the issuer's own help page, fee table or terms. If we cannot find an official source, we do not publish a number. Second-hand write-ups and other comparison blogs are never used as a source.
02 Every card carries the date we checked it	Fees change. So each card records two dates: the effective date the issuer states, and the date we actually read the document. Both appear on the page, so you can judge how fresh the data is rather than trusting that it is.
03 Not published means “not published”	A blank cell reads as “free”, and an estimate reads as a fact. So anything the issuer does not disclose is shown in italics as not published — even when that makes the table look worse.
04 Ranking does not follow commission	Cards are ordered by how verifiable their fees are and how realistic they are to obtain. Cards we have no partnership with appear on the same table and can rank first.
05 If we have not used it, we say so	The word “tested” is reserved for cards we have actually opened and actually spent on. Everything else is labelled as documentation research. The two are distinguished on the page.
06 No investment or tax advice	We publish product costs. Tax treatment of crypto assets varies by person and jurisdiction; we give no personalised advice and will never claim that a card reduces your tax liability.

What counts as a source

An acceptable source is a page the issuer publishes and stands behind: a fee schedule, a help-centre article, or the card's terms and conditions. We link to it from the card page so you can open it yourself.

Some of them are awkward. RedotPay publishes its fee table as an image, so it cannot be read as text at all — we downloaded it and read it cell by cell. Crypto.com publishes a different schedule per issuing region, and the one that applies to holders outside Singapore with a Singapore-issued card is a separate document from the headline one. Finding the right edition is part of the work.

What does not count

Other comparison sites and blog round-ups
Marketing pages and affiliate material
Support agents' verbal answers
Social posts, forum threads, and AI summaries

These can be useful leads — they tell us where to look. They are never the source we publish against.

How this site makes money

Some application links pay us a referral fee. You never pay more because of it. The sequence is deliberate: fees are checked, ranking is decided, and only then do we look at whether a commercial relationship exists.

Links with a relationship are marked rel="sponsored" in the HTML; links without one are not. Both kinds sit in the same table.

If we get something wrong

Email us with the issuer page you saw it on. We re-read the source, correct the page, and move the check date with it — a correction that leaves the old date in place is worse than the original error, because it makes stale data look fresh.

We do not keep a public list of corrections. The page is corrected; that is what matters to the next reader.

Where AI is and is not used

AI tools help with drafting, structuring and translation. They are never the source of a figure. Every number on this site was read by a person from the issuer's own document, and that is exactly the step a language model cannot be trusted with — a plausible fee is indistinguishable from a real one until someone opens the page.