Head to head
Pulsar vs EtherFi
Both cards run on the same benchmark test, so this compares deducted cost rather than advertised rates.
| Metric | Pu Pulsar | Et EtherFi |
|---|---|---|
| Overall rank | #12 of 35 | #3 of 35 |
| FX spread | 1% | 0.51% |
| Base cashback | 0.5% in Points (Free, first $500, then 0.25%); 4% in Points on Pro | 3% instant |
| Custody | Non-custodial (as stated by Pulsar) | Non-Custodial |
| Virtual card | Available | First free, $10 for additional |
| Physical card | Coming soon | $50 (metal unlocked on higher VIP tiers) |
| Spend limit | No spending limit | Up to $30,000/day on the free Core tier |
| ATM withdrawals | $250 free, then 2% fee | $250/day limit, 2% flat fee, no free tier |
| Setup time | 5-10 minutes | ~8 minutes |
| KYC steps | 2 | 5 |
| 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.
EtherFi
EtherFi charges a 0.51% spread when you swipe in a foreign currency, but the instant 3% cashback more than neutralises it. Net cost on the benchmark purchase came to $1.45, below the mid-market value of the same basket. Stay under the $2,000 monthly cap and the card pays you to spend.
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+