No-KYC Instant Exchange Comparison: ETZ-Swap vs MoBit vs DEX.fo vs CCE.Cash vs Splash

So, in this No-KYC Instant Exchange Comparison, here are five services side by side: ETZ-Swap, MoBit.Exchange, DEX.fo, CCE.Cash and Splash.tf. “No KYC” means one thing: the service doesn’t ask for your ID. It says nothing about whether deposits are screened, what the website shares with third parties, or what happens if a payout never arrives.

We ran one real order through each of five services: ETZ-Swap, MoBit, DEX.fo, CCE.Cash and Splash. All five call themselves no-KYC, or close to it. They are not equally private, and their advertised fees didn’t match what we paid.

This article puts the findings side by side. It doesn’t rank the services or pick a winner. It shows where they differ and what to check before you send coins.

No-KYC Instant Exchange Comparison

Here’s the short version in one table. Each entry comes either from what the service says about itself, as recorded in our directory, or from our own test order. The sections after the table pull those two apart. Where a source says nothing, the cell says so instead of guessing.

*Observed figures come from individual LandOfCrypto test transactions conducted at different times and are not simultaneous market quotes. They also use different reference prices (see the methodology section) and should not be read as a fee ranking.

For the full attribute lists, see our directory pages for ETZ-Swap, MoBit, DEX.fo, CCE.Cash and Splash. All of them live in the instant exchange directory.

How We Compared These Five Exchanges

We use three kinds of information and keep them apart: what a service claims, what our directory records, and what we saw in our own test order. Anything we couldn’t confirm is marked as undisclosed or unverified.

The tests aren’t directly comparable. They ran on different days, at different Bitcoin prices, with orders of roughly $100 to $200. Some started with BTC, others with USDT. Each review used a different cost reference. So every number here is a single observation, not a fee ranking.

Details are in the reviews: ETZ-Swap, MoBit, DEX.fo, CCE.Cash and Splash.

The five reviews were not run under identical conditions, and that limits what can be compared. Here is what each test looked like:

ETZ-Swap vs MoBit vs DEX.fo vs CCE.Cash vs Splash: Key Differences

At a glance, the five look alike. No account, Monero supported, floating rates and usually fixed ones too. The differences sit underneath.

ETZ-Swap claims the longest asset list, more than 1,300, and it was the only service where our review saw the full receiving wallet address going to a third party from the default site. It names no legal entity, and the test order came with no signed record.

MoBit has the shortest list apart from Splash, six assets, but the confirmation page we tested made no third-party requests. It was also the only payout wallet with indirect sanctions exposure in its funding history, five hops back.

DEX.fo runs two execution paths. FAST fills from its own reserves, CHAIN goes through external bridges. In the DEX.fo review, the headline finding was the gap between a roughly 0.8% advertised fee and about 1.6% on a $100 order. It’s also the only service where we actually tested support.

CCE.Cash is the odd one out on compliance. According to its terms, as read in our CCE.Cash analysis, it screens orders and can ask for verification, so low-KYC describes it better than no-KYC. It’s also the only clearnet-only service of the five.

Splash has the smallest asset list, four coins, and the clearest picture of its own reserves, since its payout wallet matched the figure it publishes. The Splash.tf review found a payout rate above the CoinGecko reference, but also a wait of about 32 minutes after the first confirmation, far beyond the advertised time.

The sections below go through each dimension and compare all five.

KYC, AML and Account Requirements

None of the five asked for an account or ID in our tests. The differences start after that.

ETZ-Swap says it never asks for verification, but it screens deposits and may delay, refuse or refund an order. CCE.Cash is closest to conditional KYC: its terms allow ID and proof-of-funds requests, and refusing can mean a reduced refund or blacklisting. Its directory entry says the opposite, so check the current terms. MoBit, DEX.fo and Splash state no screening.

“No screening” doesn’t protect you on the receiving end. MoBit’s payout wallet scored 40 out of 100 on one AML tool because of indirect sanctions exposure. DEX.fo’s review found AML tools disagreeing widely on the same payout. We didn’t use one tool on all five, so these scores can’t be compared.

Privacy: Which Services Actually Minimise Data Exposure?

This is where “no KYC” and “private” come apart.

• ETZ-Swap: the default site made 444 requests, 31 to third parties. Google Analytics received our receiving wallet address and the order URL. Its order-status API also answered without authentication.
• CCE.Cash: the full order code went to Clicky Analytics, and the order code works like a password.
• MoBit, DEX.fo and Splash: no third-party requests in our captures. MoBit’s capture only covered the confirmation page.

A browser capture can’t show what a server records, so the 15-day retention windows remain claims. MoBit, DEX.fo and Splash list Tor and no-JS access. CCE.Cash has neither. For ETZ-Swap the directory contradicts itself, and we didn’t test it.

Liquidity: Own Reserves vs External Liquidity

Own reserves mean the service pays from its own inventory. That keeps the chain of parties short but limits pairs and sizes. External liquidity widens both and adds parties, steps and time. Our sources don’t show either to be safer.

Splash: own reserves. The payout wallet had no top-up before our swap.

ETZ-Swap: our payout came from a pre-funded wallet, and our deposit was still unspent days later. That says nothing about its other assets.

MoBit: publishes live reserves, and our payout came from a wallet that already held the coins.

DEX.fo: FAST uses its own reserves, CHAIN uses third-party bridges. The review doesn’t say which mode our test used.

CCE.Cash: mixed. We couldn’t identify who controls the payout wallet.

Fees and Exchange Rates

Advertised fees are a starting point. Here is what each test cost, as single transactions.

• ETZ-Swap: no published fee. We got about 2.19% less than the CoinGecko reference.
• MoBit: advertised 1% dynamic, we paid about 0.96%.
• DEX.fo: advertised about 0.8%, we paid about 1.6% on a $100 order. Support said the low rate applies only above $1,000.
• CCE.Cash: advertised 0.5% for BTC, we got about 1.08% below its own rate.
• Splash: advertised 0.5%, we received about 0.39% more than the reference. We couldn’t verify the fee from one order.

None of the real costs could be read straight off the homepage figure. These numbers use different references, routes and sizes, so don’t treat them as a ranking.

Speed and Transaction Execution

A single timing number hides what actually caused the wait. A swap runs on two clocks. One is the blockchain clock, which is the time your deposit needs to confirm. The other is the service clock, which is what the exchange does once the deposit qualifies. Only the second one says anything about the exchange itself.

A few things are worth pulling out of that table.

The direction of each test matters. ETZ-Swap, MoBit and Splash were funded with Bitcoin, whose confirmations arrive at irregular intervals. CCE.Cash and DEX.fo were funded with USDT on Ethereum, where confirmations come faster, though DEX.fo waited for 11 of them. A short total on a USDT deposit and a long one on a Bitcoin deposit tells you more about the chains than about the exchanges.

The service-controlled portion is what actually separates them, and across these single orders it varied a lot: about six and a half minutes at ETZ-Swap, about fifteen at MoBit, about thirty-two at Splash, and under two at CCE.Cash. We don’t know the reason behind any of those intervals. MoBit’s was shorter than its stated policy implied (it paid after one confirmation, not two), which the review treats as good news for speed but a mismatch with the rule. Splash overshot its homepage claim by a wide margin. These are one-off observations taken at different times, and another order could behave differently.

Processing was automatic in every case. All four reviews that tested an overpayment documented automatic recalculation with no support ticket (ETZ-Swap, DEX.fo, CCE.Cash and Splash). The MoBit review doesn’t describe an overpayment test. No review reports manual intervention in the tested order. And refund speed isn’t documented anywhere, because none of the five test orders triggered a refund, so any timing claim about refunds remains unverified.

Supported Coins and Networks

ETZ-Swap claims more than 1,300 assets, CCE.Cash lists about a dozen, DEX.fo seven, MoBit six and Splash four. What matters is whether your pair is on the list, so check each directory listing for coins and networks.

All five support Monero, so Monero by itself doesn’t set any of them apart. What differs is the context around it. ETZ-Swap’s directory entry notes reliable XMR availability even during stretches when other platforms had trouble with the coin, and CCE.Cash sponsors the MoneroKon conference (both are directory claims). MoBit and Splash pair Monero with a very short list. Dash shows up at ETZ-Swap and CCE.Cash, Zcash at ETZ-Swap. On stablecoins, MoBit is richest with three, DEX.fo has two across two networks, and Splash is thinnest with DAI only.

Networks matter as well. DEX.fo lists USDT on both ERC-20 and TRC-20, which can change what you pay on the deposit side, while ETZ-Swap, MoBit, CCE.Cash and Splash test all involved ERC-20 tokens on Ethereum.

Guarantees, Refunds and What Happens When Something Goes Wrong

Three different things get called a “guarantee”:

Refunds are the service’s own policy. DEX.fo and Splash list guaranteed refunds. ETZ-Swap and MoBit work on reasonable efforts. CCE.Cash’s terms conflict with its directory entry. All of this is claimed, not tested.

A signed letter proves what the service said about your order. The MoBit and Splash letters we checked were valid but covered only order metadata, not amount or rate. DEX.fo signs every order. ETZ-Swap and CCE.Cash issue none.

Escrow is a separate deposit meant to compensate users if the service fails. DEX.fo lists 1 BTC, MoBit 0.25 BTC, Splash uses a forum guarantor. We confirmed only Splash’s was funded. It is a shared, capped pot.

Transparency and Accountability

None of the five names a team or reports a security audit. CCE.Cash is registered in the Seychelles but listed as unlicensed. The others disclose no jurisdiction or license. ETZ-Swap, MoBit and Splash show live reserves.

Without a named company, accountability rests on reputation, signed letters, escrow and public reserves. MoBit and Splash offer a verified letter, escrow and live reserves. DEX.fo offers signed receipts and escrow. ETZ-Swap has live reserves but no signed record or escrow. A short track record isn’t bad in itself, it just means less evidence to go on.

Anonymity doesn’t count against a service automatically. It does change what kind of accountability you get. With a registered entity, as with CCE.Cash in the Seychelles, you at least have a nominal legal counterparty and terms tied to a jurisdiction, though the directory lists CCE.Cash as unlicensed. With a pseudonymous operator, accountability shifts toward reputation and mechanisms like signed letters, forum escrow and public reserves. That’s real accountability, but it rests on the forum, the community and the cryptography, not on a court.

The services stack those mechanisms differently. MoBit and Splash pair a verified signed letter with a forum escrow and live reserves. DEX.fo combines signed letters with a 1 BTC forum escrow and an active presence across Bitcointalk regional boards, AltcoinsTalks and no-KYC directories, which our review reads as ongoing upkeep, not a single abandoned announcement. ETZ-Swap shows live reserves but has no signed guarantee or escrow, and its Terms and About pages name no company, jurisdiction, registration number or governing law. CCE.Cash has the most conventional corporate footprint but no signed letter, and per the directory it’s embedded in wallets such as Bitcoin.com, Coinomi and Unstoppable Wallet, with a stated partnership with the aggregator Trocador. We found no security audits and no named teams for any of the five.

Customer Support

A listed contact method says very little about whether support is any use, and the reviews tested very little of it. We’ll be explicit about which is which.

ETZ-Swap lists five channels in the directory: contact form, email, live chat, SimpleX and Telegram. Our review didn’t test any of them. MoBit’s directory field lists email, and the review adds a Bitcointalk thread. The directory description mentions an official Telegram bot, which doesn’t match the field. We didn’t test it.

DEX.fo is the one that got tested, and the only one across all five reviews. After the reviewer set up SimpleX, a reply came back in under a minute from a real person, who also explained the fee structure the calculator doesn’t show. DEX.fo lists SimpleX, email and forum presence. The directory description names Telegram and SimpleX, while the structured field lists email and SimpleX, and our review mentions SimpleX, email and forums.

CCE.Cash lists email and live chat. The review says responsive live chat support was “reported”, which isn’t the same as tested. Splash offers a contact form with a stated response time of under 12 hours (a service claim), plus a Bitcointalk thread, and the review’s contact list includes an email address.

So for four of the five, all we can honestly say is which channels exist. One more thing: SimpleX, used by ETZ-Swap and DEX.fo, is a hurdle in itself if you haven’t installed it.

Which Type of User Is Each Service Suited To?

This isn’t a ranking. Each profile asks what a particular user might weigh most, and matches services only on the documented evidence.

Users prioritising Tor access and no-JavaScript use. MoBit may be more relevant to users who want both, and who want the confirmation page to load nothing external, as in our capture. Splash may be more relevant to users who want a nearly script-free flow with one tiny script and no cookies. DEX.fo may be more relevant to users who want a working Tor mirror alongside a service whose capture showed no third-party calls. ETZ-Swap’s availability on these routes is unresolved in our sources, and CCE.Cash is clearnet only.

Users wanting own-reserve execution. MoBit and Splash may be more relevant to users who want to be paid from the service’s own reserves with public balances. Our tests of ETZ-Swap, MoBit and Splash found payouts from pre-funded wallets on the routes we ran, and DEX.fo’s FAST mode is described as own-reserve.

Users wanting a broader asset selection. ETZ-Swap may be more relevant to users who need a pair outside the short lists, given the 1,300-plus claim. The caveats are that the list isn’t itemized in our sources and that the test showed default-site tracking and no signed record. CCE.Cash may be more relevant to users who want a dozen major assets, including SOL, XRP, TRX and LTC.

Users focused on Monero. All five support it, so the question is what surrounds it: a short list with Monero and stablecoins (MoBit, Splash), tiered Monero pricing at CCE.Cash (0.8% per its list), or a wider selection at ETZ-Swap.

Users who want a signed transaction record. MoBit and Splash may be more relevant to users who value a PGP-signed letter that we verified, understanding that both leave out amount and rate. DEX.fo may be more relevant to users who want signed receipts plus published verification instructions.

Users who want automated refunds. Splash and DEX.fo may be more relevant to users who want a guaranteed refund model on paper, and Splash also automates out-of-range refunds without a fee. These are service claims, and no review triggered a refund.

Users who prioritise simple execution. CCE.Cash may be more relevant to users who want a low-friction interface and a short post-deposit processing interval (about 1.5 minutes in our test), as long as they accept conditional screening and the analytics finding. MoBit may suit users who want a six-asset, no-account flow.

Users who need third-party liquidity for additional pairs. DEX.fo’s CHAIN mode, CCE.Cash’s outside providers and ETZ-Swap’s directory-listed mixed model are the documented routes to pairs a small reserve may not cover, with the extra parties that implies.

Users who want a corporate counterparty. CCE.Cash may be more relevant to users who want a Seychelles-registered entity, understanding that it’s listed as unlicensed and applies conditional verification.

Five Exchanges, Five Different Trade-Offs

Nothing in this set is strongest on every dimension, and the dimensions pull against each other.

ETZ-Swap swaps transparency for breadth and a quick processing interval. It covers the most assets and its test order finished in about 15 minutes, but its default site sent order details to three third parties, its test order’s effective rate landed about 2.19% below the CoinGecko reference, and it offers no signed guarantee or named entity.

MoBit gives up range in return for network cleanliness and checkable paperwork: six assets, a hardened confirmation page, a verified signed letter and published reserves. Against that, its payout wallet showed indirect sanctions exposure, its letter omits amount and rate, and its confirmation policy didn’t match what we saw.

DEX.fo trades headline pricing for privacy and recourse. No third-party calls in our capture, signed receipts, a forum escrow and guaranteed refunds on paper, set against a small-order cost near double the advertised fee and a seven-coin list.

CCE.Cash trades documented compliance conditions for speed and a registered footprint. You get quick post-deposit processing, a broad asset list and a Seychelles registration, and you give up unconditional KYC-free use, an order code that went to analytics, a signed guarantee and any Tor access.

Splash gives up breadth and speed in return for reserve transparency and light tracking: four assets, an on-chain-matched reserve, a clean network capture and a rate above the CoinGecko reference. The costs were about 32 unexplained minutes after confirmation, a traceable reserve wallet, a letter that omits the amount and rate, and no named operator.

So what should you check before you choose? Here are six questions we’d start with:

1. Is the access path you’ll use (default site, no-JS or Tor) the one a review actually tested?
2. What does a small order cost in practice, beyond the advertised percentage?
3. Does the service pay from its own reserves or through outside liquidity on the pair you need?
4. What would a signed letter, an escrow or a refund promise actually cover, and what wouldn’t it?
5. Who, if anyone, can be held accountable, and through what mechanism?
6. Does the service screen deposits, and what does it do when it refuses one?

Frequently Asked Questions