Register of payment and electronic money institutions under PSD2
The European Banking Authority publishes a central register of payment institutions and electronic money institutions authorised or registered under the second Payment Services Directive. The authorisations are granted by national authorities, which supply the information the register contains.
Domain Rating is a dated Ahrefs snapshot of domain authority. PetroHrys Score is an independent editorial assessment of the directory’s practical business value. They are separate measurements and are never combined. Domain Rating values are dated historical Ahrefs snapshots. Domain Rating is a dated historical measurement of the shared domain, not an assessment of this individual registry page. New measurements are not collected because the Research Center does not depend on mandatory authenticated APIs. Where several registries are published on one measured domain they repeat that domain’s single dated snapshot rather than each carrying a figure of its own. Domain Rating is a third-party metric produced by their respective providers, not by PetroHrys.com. Each recorded value carries its provider and the date it was measured, and describes the domain that was measured rather than one page on it. No source has been consulted for authority score, estimated traffic and referring domains, so they are not published for any record.
Partly open The EBA documents that public users can search the central register free of charge, which is why free search is recorded. The register application itself was not exercised, so no search URL is published and no claim is made about login, CAPTCHA or export.
Hosting
This registry is a distinct system hosted on the shared eba.europa.eu platform.
Assessment
Strengths
The EBA documents that public users can search the central register free of charge, so the access position is stated by the operator rather than assumed.
It gives one European view of payment and e-money authorisations, which matters because these firms passport across borders.
The provenance is explicit: the EBA states that national competent authorities provide the information the register contains.
Limitations
It is a compilation, not the authorisation itself. Under the directive, granting authorisation to payment institutions rests with the national authorities.
The EBA states that it built the register solely from information supplied by national authorities and does not warrant that information.
The register application was not exercised, so its search behaviour and export options were not observed and no search URL is published.
Submission guidance
Records are created through incorporation, registration, filing, or statutory processes.
Submission difficulty
Unknown
Typical listing quality
High
Typical approval time
Unknown
Review process
Unknown
Best for
Checking whether a payment or e-money firm is authorised or registered under the second Payment Services Directive, and in which member state.
Verifying a fintech counterparty’s regulatory status across Europe from one register rather than many national ones.
Not recommended for
Treating the EBA as the authorising body. Authorisation is granted by the national authority, and the EBA compiles what it is told.
Assuming an entry proves a firm is safe or well run. It records an authorisation, not conduct or solvency.
Preparation checklist
No checklist recorded yet.
Common mistakes
No common mistakes recorded yet.
Establishing required submission assets requires submitting a listing and observing the result. That has not been done for any directory in this dataset, so it is not published rather than estimated.
What this directory accepts
Startups
Yes
SaaS products
Unknown
Enterprises
Yes
Agencies
Unknown
Freelancers
Unknown
Local businesses
Unknown
Developer tools
Yes
Open-source projects
Unknown
Non-profits
Unknown
AI products
Unknown
Mobile apps
Unknown
Ecommerce stores
Unknown
Recommended industries
Payment institutions and electronic money institutions in the European Economic Area
How the PetroHrys Score was reached
Editorial trust 15%
10 / 10How far the entries a directory publishes can be relied on as accurate.
Business usefulness 15%
9 / 10How much practical use a listing there is to the business being listed.
Verification quality 12%
8 / 10How thoroughly the directory establishes that an entry is genuine before publishing it.
Platform reputation 10%
9 / 10How the platform is regarded in its field. Deliberately not a popularity, traffic or recognition measure.
Spam resistance 10%
10 / 10How well the directory keeps low-quality and promotional entries out.
Industry importance 10%
9 / 10How central the directory is to its sector, independently of how useful one listing is.
Long-term stability 10%
9 / 10How likely the directory is to still exist, and to still carry the entry, years from now.
Submission quality 8%
5 / 10What the submission process asks for and how workable it is for the business submitting.
Transparency 5%
9 / 10How openly the directory states its rules, costs and criteria.
Moderation quality 5%
8 / 10How the directory maintains entries after publication.
The PetroHrys Score is a first-party editorial assessment, not a third-party
authority metric. It is the weighted sum of the ten factors above, divided by ten, so the number
on this page is reproducible from the values shown. Each factor is scored from 0 to 10 by a human reviewer and weighted as shown. The definitions describe what was weighed, not a rubric: no threshold or formula maps a directory onto a value, and two reviewers could reach different numbers. The score is reproducible from the factors shown on every record, but it is an editorial judgement, not a measurement.