Head to head
Pulsar vs Coca Card
Both cards run on the same benchmark test, so this compares deducted cost rather than advertised rates.
| Metric | Pu Pulsar | Co Coca Card |
|---|---|---|
| Overall rank | #12 of 35 | #2 of 35 |
| FX spread | 1% | 1.18% |
| Base cashback | 0.5% in Points (Free, first $500, then 0.25%); 4% in Points on Pro | 1% in USDC, paid on the 10th |
| Custody | Non-custodial (as stated by Pulsar) | Non-Custodial |
| Virtual card | Available | Free |
| Physical card | Coming soon | $1 + international shipping |
| Spend limit | No spending limit | $30,000 / month |
| ATM withdrawals | $250 free, then 2% fee | Fee-free up to $250/month, network fees apply above |
| Setup time | 5-10 minutes | ~8 minutes |
| KYC steps | 2 | 4 |
| Score | 6.8/10 | 9.2/10 |
Pulsar
Clearly above average. The app is built well and the points system is a unique angle, and the new 0% stablecoin to EUR model is insanely good. The main drawback is the subscription model, and high FX fees.
Coca Card
Coca takes the top spot because it pairs a genuinely non-custodial wallet with stablecoin cashback that cancels out its FX spread. A single-tier upgrade unlocks up to 8% cashback, 50% off subscriptions and 5% APY, which is the best value on offer anywhere in this ranking. It's also a useful crypto wallet entirely on its own. The crypto wallet includes WalletConnect, meaning you can integrate it into your own apps.
Who ranks these cards
I'm Tristyn Pawson, founder of ConsistenC.xyz. Over the last five years I've worked on marketing, development and growth across five crypto cards and neobanks, building at least three of them from scratch.
Alongside that I've run in-depth research on 20+ crypto banks to understand what actually makes someone keep a card in their wallet. These rankings reflect that: which problems are tolerable, and which ones are genuine deal breakers.
- Years in market
- 5
- Cards built on
- 5
- Neobanks researched
- 20+