Head to head
Churnkey vs three.ws Agent Payments
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Read and manage Churnkey cancel flows, retention metrics, and payment recovery
Full listing
No reviews yet
Governed x402 payment sessions: pay any endpoint with budget, allowlist & per-tx caps, no key.
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours Churnkey (100/100 against 83). Churnkey is hosted and callable through the gateway; three.ws Agent Payments runs on your own machine.
| Churnkey | three.ws Agent Payments | |
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A100/100 | B83/100 |
| Adoption | Growing | Established |
| GitHub stars | 22 | 206 |
| Downloads / week | – | 40 |
| Runs where | Hosted (remote) | Your machine (local) |
| Gateway-ready | Yes | No |
| Tools | — | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Last release | 2026-09-10 | 2026-09-22 |
| Category | Finance | Finance |