Paystand Review

Paystand is a California B2B payments and accounts-receivable company, founded in 2013 by Jeremy Almond and Scott Campbell, built on a premise that inverts how this industry normally charges: you pay a flat monthly subscription rather than a percentage of every transaction. Its own bank-to-bank network carries payments between businesses at no transaction fee, while card and ACH acceptance are resold at what it describes as pre-negotiated wholesale rates, and the software sits on top automating invoicing, collections and reconciliation against ERP systems like NetSuite. It bought the spend-management company Teampay in April 2024, which took it into accounts payable as well, and it says the combined network now touches more than a million businesses with over $20bn in payment volume processed. In April 2026 it launched USDb, a stablecoin backed one-to-one by dollar reserves and issued on two Bitcoin layers — a genuine strategic bet, and the thing most likely to decide whether a given finance team sees Paystand as forward-looking or as a risk it does not need.

A company that refuses to charge a percentage

Almost everything in payments is priced as a share of what moves through it. That convention came from consumer card acceptance, where transaction values are small and fraud risk scales roughly with the amount, and it was carried into business-to-business payments largely without being re-examined. It does not hold up well there. Moving $80,000 from one company to another is not eighty times as much work, or eighty times as much risk, as moving $1,000 — yet a percentage fee charges as though it were.

Paystand's answer, since 2013, has been to charge a flat monthly subscription and build its own bank-to-bank network that carries business payments with no transaction fee at all. Card and ACH acceptance remain available for customers who will not move, resold at what Paystand calls pre-negotiated wholesale rates. The software layer on top does the ordinary work of an AR platform: invoicing, payment portals, reminders, collections, cash application and reconciliation back into the ERP, with NetSuite the most developed integration. Founded by Jeremy Almond, still chief executive, and Scott Campbell, the company added the payables side by acquiring the spend-management company Teampay on 25 April 2024.

The alignment argument here is real and worth stating plainly, because this site is sceptical of most claims of that kind. A provider earning a percentage of your volume makes less money when your costs fall. A provider earning a fixed subscription does not. That does not make Paystand cheap — it makes its incentive compatible with you getting cheaper, which is a different and rarer thing.

And then does not publish the price

The difficulty is that the entire proposition rests on a comparison a prospective buyer cannot make. Paystand publishes no subscription price, no tiers, no wholesale card or ACH rate, and no contract term. Its pricing page explains the philosophy, asserts that you would spend more on competitors' transaction fees than on its fixed monthly rate, and routes you to a custom ROI analysis.

For a company whose pitch is that you will pay less, that is the wrong thing to withhold. It is not unusual — most B2B software is sold this way — but it is harder to excuse here than elsewhere, because the claim being made is specifically about cost. The savings figures offered in its place are self-reported: an average user reducing cost to transact by 49% in one place, up to 50% in another, neither with a methodology, a sample, or a definition of the baseline being measured. Those numbers may well be true for the customers they describe. They cannot be checked, and they should not carry weight in a purchasing decision that a model built from your own twelve months of payment data could settle properly.

Where the savings actually come from — and who has to do the work

It is worth being concrete about the mechanism, because it determines whether any of this applies to you. The large savings come from displacing card interchange. If your customers currently pay six-figure invoices by card and you absorb two or three percent, moving them onto a fee-free bank-to-bank rail is transformative arithmetic. If they already pay by ACH at a few cents a transaction, there is very little to displace, and a fixed monthly subscription is a new cost rather than a replacement for an old one.

The second variable is adoption, and this is the part that is easy to underestimate. The zero-fee network only works when your customers pay through it, which means persuading other companies' accounts-payable departments to change a process they did not ask to change. That burden falls on you, not on Paystand. Any business case should therefore be built on a realistic adoption rate rather than on full migration, and anyone quoting you savings should be asked what adoption assumption sits inside the model.

The Bitcoin question

Paystand has described its network as blockchain-based for years, which for most of that time was an implementation detail a finance team could reasonably ignore. In April 2026 it became harder to ignore. The company launched USDb, a stablecoin backed one-to-one by dollar reserves and issued on Blockstream's Liquid network and on Rootstock — both layers built on top of Bitcoin — aimed at receivables, payables, payroll and treasury workflows, with availability described as expanding to partners and enterprise customers through 2026.

This is a genuine strategic bet rather than a press release, and it cuts both ways. It is the most interesting thing about Paystand, and it is also the clearest reason a conservative buyer might decline. You do not need to touch USDb to use the AR automation. But you would be entrusting your receivables to a vendor whose strategy now requires you to have a view on stablecoin reserve backing, attestation, the durability of two Bitcoin layer-two networks, and where regulation lands. Those are not questions that arise when buying a conventional AR tool, and a finance function that would rather not answer them is making a legitimate choice.

What can and cannot be verified

Paystand's own figures are at least issued by Paystand: more than $20bn in payment volume and a network touching over a million businesses across North and Latin America, the latter reached after the Teampay acquisition. One caution on reading them. The company's language moves between a network that "touches" a million businesses and a claim to "service 1,000,000+ companies", and those are materially different statements — network reach counts every business that has ever been on the other end of a payment, while customers are the firms actually paying for the product. The looser phrasing flatters the tighter number.

Independent evidence is thinner than a thirteen-year-old company should have accumulated. Third-party sources report roughly 4.5 on G2 from about 26 reviews and 4.3 on Capterra from about 78; we attempted to read both profiles directly and were blocked, so those figures are reported rather than confirmed, and neither sample is large enough to conclude much. The same secondary sources describe recurring friction on implementation timelines, support responsiveness, dashboard performance and how long funds take to clear, including an account reported locked with funds held. We could not corroborate those independently and present them as questions to put to references rather than as findings.

One deliberate omission. Widely circulated figures for Paystand's total funding, its most recent round and its valuation come from deal-data aggregators, and we could not match them to any company announcement — including a round attribution that looked inconsistent with how the named investor usually participates. This review therefore gives no funding or valuation numbers at all, rather than repeating figures we cannot stand behind. That Paystand is venture-funded, and that the SoftBank Opportunity Fund and NewView Capital appear among the investors on its own site, is all we can state.

The verdict

B-. Paystand has the best argument about pricing of any company in B2B payments: percentage fees on large invoices are hard to justify, a subscription is the coherent alternative, and building a fee-free bank-to-bank network rather than negotiating interchange down is a more serious attempt at the problem than most. The AR automation is substantive, the NetSuite work is well regarded by the reviewers there are, and buying Teampay made the platform whole across both sides of the ledger.

It sits at B- because so much of the commercial case is unavailable for inspection. No published price, for a product sold on price. Savings claims that are self-reported and undefined. A thin independent review base, read at second hand because the sites could not be opened. Scale figures whose phrasing shifts between network reach and customer count. And a stablecoin strategy that adds a category of risk the buyer did not come for. None of that makes Paystand a bad choice for the mid-market B2B finance team it is built for — it makes it a choice you should only make after a worked model on your own data, a written price schedule, and reference calls that ask directly about implementation and clearing times.