Payment Systems for Websites in 2026: How to Choose Without Overpaying or Adding Complexity

In 2026, choosing a payment system in Russia based solely on commission rates is a risky strategy. A low percentage rate might lose out to a solution that offers faster setup, better payment conversion, and support for digital receipts, subscriptions, the Faster Payments System (SBP), and bank-based "Pay" services.

Following the departure of familiar international providers, the growth of SBP, the development of SberPay, T-Pay, and Alfa Pay, and changes to VAT on acquiring fees, it is more important to look at the entire payment stack rather than a single tariff: commission, payment methods, fiscalization (online receipt processing), integration speed, and buyer convenience.

Below is a practical comparison of YooKassa, Robokassa, CloudPayments, T-Bank, Alfa-Bank, and PayKeeper based on current website information and tariff documents.

Quick Selection Guide

If you need a simple start for an online store, service website, online school, or payment via link, look at YooKassa and Robokassa first. This is not always the cheapest route, but it is usually the fastest.

If your product involves subscriptions, recurring charges, a user account, card storage, and requires a seamless payment experience, CloudPayments appears more robust.

If your business already resides within T-Bank—meaning your settlement account, accounting, operational processes, and account manager are there—it is logical to start with them. However, you should still request an individual quote.

If your turnover is already significant and card commission impacts your unit economics, it is worth comparing direct bank internet acquiring: Alfa-Bank, T-Bank, Sber, and other banks may offer better terms than aggregators.

If you need not just a payment button but a payment infrastructure—multiple banks, SBP, online fiscalization, invoicing, recurring payments, and support—it makes sense to look at PayKeeper.

Commissions: What is visible from public tariffs

This table does not replace a formal commercial proposal. In payments, much depends on the nature of your business, turnover, average check size, share of SBP, returns, subscriptions, and fiscalization settings.

YooKassa: A Straightforward Universal Start

YooKassa is suitable for businesses that need to accept website payments quickly without separate bank integration. Typical scenarios include online stores, online schools, consultations, events, services, subscriptions, and payment-by-link.

On their tariff page, YooKassa notes that there is no subscription fee, commission is charged only for successful payments, and the rate depends on the payment method, business type, and company turnover: YooKassa Tariffs. The base tariff applies up to a turnover of 3 million rubles per month, Premium from 3 million, and individual terms from 5 million.

In the base tier, the commission for Visa, Mastercard, Maestro, Mir, and JCB cards is 3.5% for goods, services, digital, and gaming content; for charity, it is 2.8%: YooKassa Commission Table. YooMoney, SberPay, Alfa Pay, and T-Pay are also charged at 3.5% in the base tier.

A specific 2026 nuance is VAT. YooKassa states that starting January 1, 2026, for certain payment methods, a 22% VAT on the commission amount is withheld in addition to the commission, not on the total payment amount: YooKassa VAT Section. If the commission is 30 ₽, the VAT is calculated on that 30 ₽.

Who it fits: Small businesses needing a reliable "out-of-the-box" payment system.

Weakness: Base card commission is not the lowest. With turnovers of several million rubles per month, it is worth discussing individual terms or comparing direct bank acquiring.

Robokassa: Fast Launch Plus Fiscalization

Robokassa solves a similar task: one contract, multiple payment methods, ready-made modules, fast launch. On their tariff page, the service indicates: connection — 0 ₽, subscription fee — 0 ₽, commission only for successful payments, and receipt transmission is included in the rate: Robokassa Tariffs.

For Russian cards, the rate for legal entities and individual entrepreneurs depends on turnover. At launch (0 ₽ turnover), it is 3.9%; from 300,000 ₽ — 3.7%; from 700,000 ₽ — 3.3%; from 3 million ₽ — 3.1%; from 7 million ₽ — 2.9%: Robokassa Card Grid.

SBP also becomes cheaper as turnover increases: 2.7% on the start tariff, 2.5% from 300,000 ₽, 2.3% from 700,000 ₽, 2.0% from 3 million ₽, 1.8% from 7 million ₽: Robokassa SBP Tariffs. This is higher than the "net" SBP rate via a bank, but in Robokassa, the business pays not just for SBP, but for an aggregator with receipts, a payment method storefront, and ready-made modules.

For self-employed individuals, terms are separate: Russian cards — 3.4%, SBP — 3.0%: Robokassa Tariffs for Self-Employed.

Who it fits: Individual entrepreneurs, LLCs, and self-employed individuals who value receipts, fast startup, ready CMS modules, and a wide selection of payment methods.

Weakness: At low turnovers, the commission is higher than direct bank acquiring.

CloudPayments: When Subscriptions and Payment Experience Matter

CloudPayments should be viewed not as a standard acquiring provider, but as a payment platform for online services. It is particularly appropriate where there are subscriptions, personal accounts, card linking, recurring billing, educational products, media, applications, and service models.

On the CloudPayments homepage, they list an internet acquiring commission of 2.6%, but explicitly emphasize that this rate is approximate and actual terms are set individually by contract: CloudPayments Internet Acquiring.

This is an important caveat. 2.6% looks more attractive than the base 3.5–3.9% of aggregators, but it cannot be considered a guaranteed rate for every business. Terms depend on MCC (Merchant Category Code), turnover, and payment model.

Who it fits: Online services, subscription products, educational platforms, media, apps, and businesses where the payment form impacts retention and repeat purchases.

Weakness: If the task is simply to accept payment on a landing page tomorrow, YooKassa or Robokassa might be easier.

T-Bank: Convenient if the Business is Already in the Ecosystem

T-Bank does not publish a universal rate for internet acquiring. Their help section states that there is no subscription fee and commissions depend on the payment method—card, T-Pay, "Dolyami" (installments), SBP—and are calculated individually after an application: T-Bank Internet Acquiring Costs.

Pros: No subscription fee or turnover requirements. T-Bank explicitly states that internet acquiring can be connected with any turnover: T-Bank Turnover Requirements.

There is one detail to keep in mind: a 1 ₽ fee for unsuccessful authorizations. For a standard store, this may be insignificant. For a service with a high number of unsuccessful payment attempts, test payments, subscriptions, and recurring charges, the cost could become noticeable.

T-Bank provides an example: at a 2.5% commission, 25 ₽ is withheld from a 1,000 ₽ payment: T-Bank Calculation Example. However, this is an example, not a uniform rate for everyone.

Who it fits: Companies that already have a settlement account, accounting, and operational processes within T-Bank.

Weakness: Without applying, the rate cannot be accurately compared with competitors.

Alfa-Bank: Direct Acquiring for Businesses with Turnover

Alfa-Bank should be considered if the business is prepared to connect internet acquiring directly through the bank and wants to obtain a rate lower than an aggregator. The official tariff PDF for internet acquiring for cards indicates a base commission of 2.6–2.7% with a minimum commission of 5 ₽ per transaction: Alfa-Bank Internet Acquiring Tariffs.

The bank offers industry-specific rates. For example, utilities — 1%, medical — 1.99%, travel/tourism — 1.73%, education — 1.99%, fast food — 1.74%, supermarkets — 1.99%: Alfa-Bank Industry Tariffs.

Another plus: the tariff document states that no commission is set for unsuccessful operations: Alfa-Bank Unsuccessful Operations Section.

Who it fits: Businesses with turnover, defined MCCs, and readiness to work directly with a bank.

Weakness: Connection and configuration may be less "product-focused" than with aggregators. You must carefully review the contract, MCC, settlement times, VAT, and additional conditions.

PayKeeper: When You Need Payment Infrastructure

PayKeeper is not just a payment button, but an integrator. The company states it works with the largest Russian banks, including VTB, Gazprombank, Alfa-Bank, Raiffeisenbank, Tochka Bank, Bank Saint Petersburg, Russian Standard, and Promsvyazbank: PayKeeper Internet Acquiring.

The strength of PayKeeper lies in its infrastructure: internet acquiring through banks, SBP, online fiscalization, mPOS, recurring payments, and invoicing. For SBP, PayKeeper indicates a rate of 0.4–0.7% and real-time settlement to the checking account: PayKeeper on SBP.

Who it fits: Companies that need a combination of "bank + SBP + fiscalization + integration + support," rather than just an aggregator.

Weakness: For a small website without a complex payment scheme, this solution might be overkill.

SBP: Cheaper Than Cards, but Not a Replacement

If looking only at commission, SBP almost always beats cards. T-Bank notes on its SBP page that the commission for business can be 0.4% or 0.7% depending on the industry, and 0.2% for utilities: SBP for Business at T-Bank. Other banks cite similar ranges.

However, SBP does not completely replace cards. Some clients still prefer to pay by card, SberPay, T-Pay, saved card, or one-click payment. Therefore, a functional scheme for a website in 2026 is not "cards only" or "SBP only," but a payment form where SBP is prominent while cards remain accessible.

How to Choose in Practice

If you have a new website, a turnover of up to 300,000–500,000 rubles per month, and no developer, choose between YooKassa and Robokassa. Compare not just the commission, but the personal account, modules for your CMS, fiscalization, and the look of the payment form.

If you have an online school, subscription model, SaaS, or media outlet with recurring charges, look at CloudPayments. Their product side is stronger: card storage, recurring billing, payment widgets, and user journey management.

If you already have a bank, a settlement account, and an account manager, request a rate from your current bank. T-Bank, Alfa-Bank, Sber, and other banks may offer terms better than an aggregator, especially with turnovers from 1–3 million rubles per month.

If you have a high average check size and margins are sensitive to commission, connect SBP as a distinct, prominent scenario. Even if SBP through an aggregator costs more than directly via a bank, it is often still cheaper than card commission.

If you have multiple websites, cash registers, banks, recurring billing, B2B invoicing, and various payment methods, look at PayKeeper or direct bank integration. Here, managed payment architecture is more important than a fast start.

Summary

For most small businesses, the best start is YooKassa or Robokassa. They are more expensive than a direct bank, but save time on launch, fiscalization, and integration.

For product-based online services, CloudPayments looks stronger: it is not always cheaper, but often more convenient for subscriptions, tokenization, and recurring payments.

For businesses with established turnover and a clear operational model, it is more profitable to go to a bank directly: Alfa-Bank, T-Bank, Sber, or the bank where you already have a settlement account. There is a higher chance of obtaining a rate lower than a base aggregator rate, but there are more requirements regarding contracts, setup, and support.

The main rule: do not choose a payment system based on a single percentage rate on the website. Request a commercial proposal based on your MCC, turnover, average check, share of SBP, share of cards, returns, and recurring payment scenarios. In 2026, the real cost of payments is the sum of commission, VAT, fiscalization, rejection rates, settlement times, and lost conversion on the payment form.