PAYZE

Name: PAYZE
Brand: PAYZE (YC S21)
Rating: 2.6 (4 reviews)

Complete payments ecosystem to maximize conversion and enhance security

Est 2019|Valuation $25M|Raised $5.3M

LinkedIn 2K|Web traffic 2K|FTEs 10|HQ Tbilisi, GE

MarketsInvoicing & Payment Processing

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- UniPAY vs PAYZE: UniPAY publishes a detailed fee schedule (domestic/international/Apple Pay/AmEx, payout fees, activation fees). PAYZE’s public pricing is simpler; community feedback suggests onboarding can be more challenging. - Bank gateways (BOG / TBC / Liberty PAY) vs PAYZE: Bank solutions can offer lower tariffs in specific cases and more formal contractual frameworks, but may be slower to integrate and less developer-focused. - Global PSPs (Stripe): Stripe is often used as a reference for APIs, tooling, and ecosystem. However, Stripe frequently does not support Georgian entities, which contributes to demand for regional providers such as PAYZE and UniPAY.

Customer testimonials comparing products

Community discussions commonly shortlist PAYZE, UniPAY, and bank gateways (BOG/TBC) as practical options in Georgia. One thread suggested integrating with Bank of Georgia or TBC after reporting a PAYZE rejection.

	PAYZE (vendor site)	UniPAY (vendor site)	TBC Pay (vendor site)
Starting Price	Published domestic percentage-based headline rate for Georgia	Published per-transaction percentage plus a small fixed local-currency fee and one-time activation fees	Published commissions including a one-time integration fee and percentage-based online fees with additional fixed components
Best For	Georgian/Uzbek entities needing a single API gateway and local network support	Georgian merchants prioritizing transparent, itemized fees and website-builder integrations	Businesses aligned with the TBC ecosystem; omnichannel/cash + online integration
Key Strength	APIs for developers and broad card acceptance (including AmEx/UnionPay in Georgia; Humo/Uzcard in Uzbekistan)	Explicit fee schedule and website-builder ecosystem compatibility	Bank-backed infrastructure and potentially stronger institutional contract frameworks
Key Weakness	Reported onboarding and support friction; limited publicly documented enterprise compliance information	One-time activation fees and per-transaction fixed local-currency add-ons; potential currency constraints	Potential procurement complexity: integration fees and multiple fee components

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

UniPAY vs PAYZE: UniPAY publishes a detailed fee schedule (domestic/international/Apple Pay/AmEx, payout fees, activation fees). PAYZE’s public pricing is simpler; community feedback suggests onboarding can be more challenging.
Bank gateways (BOG / TBC / Liberty PAY) vs PAYZE: Bank solutions can offer lower tariffs in specific cases and more formal contractual frameworks, but may be slower to integrate and less developer-focused.
Global PSPs (Stripe): Stripe is often used as a reference for APIs, tooling, and ecosystem. However, Stripe frequently does not support Georgian entities, which contributes to demand for regional providers such as PAYZE and UniPAY.

Customer testimonials comparing products

	PAYZE (vendor site)	UniPAY (vendor site)	TBC Pay (vendor site)
Starting Price	Published domestic percentage-based headline rate for Georgia	Published per-transaction percentage plus a small fixed local-currency fee and one-time activation fees	Published commissions including a one-time integration fee and percentage-based online fees with additional fixed components
Best For	Georgian/Uzbek entities needing a single API gateway and local network support	Georgian merchants prioritizing transparent, itemized fees and website-builder integrations	Businesses aligned with the TBC ecosystem; omnichannel/cash + online integration
Key Strength	APIs for developers and broad card acceptance (including AmEx/UnionPay in Georgia; Humo/Uzcard in Uzbekistan)	Explicit fee schedule and website-builder ecosystem compatibility	Bank-backed infrastructure and potentially stronger institutional contract frameworks
Key Weakness	Reported onboarding and support friction; limited publicly documented enterprise compliance information	One-time activation fees and per-transaction fixed local-currency add-ons; potential currency constraints	Potential procurement complexity: integration fees and multiple fee components