Payment Processors · reliability comparison
GoCardless vs Helcim: which is more reliable? (2026)
Helcim is more reliable than GoCardless, scoring 91.9 vs 38.0 out of 100. Over the last 90 days GoCardless reported 8 incidents and Helcim reported 1, with effective uptime of 97.84% and 99.97% respectively. Helcim resolves incidents faster on average (4h 21m).
Data updated Nov 1, 2026 · How we score
| Metric | GoCardless | Helcim |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability score | 38.0 | 91.9 |
| Rank (payment processors) | #14 | #3 |
| Uptime (90 days) | 97.84% | 99.97% |
| Incidents (90 days) | 8 | 1 |
| Partial / major outages | 2 | 0 |
| Avg time to resolve | 1d 19h | 4h 21m |
| Outages we detected | 0 | 0 |
| Transparency score | 100/100 | 100/100 |
Where GoCardless and Helcim differ
- GoCardless reported 8× as many incidents as Helcim over the last 90 days (8 vs 1).
- GoCardless had 2 partial or major outages, compared with 0 for Helcim.
- Helcim fixes problems faster: 4h 21m on average, against 1d 19h for GoCardless (9.9× quicker).
- GoCardless's longest outage on record lasted 1d 1h (May 19, 2026); Helcim's lasted 1h 6m (May 9, 2026).
90-day uptime
GoCardless
Helcim
- No incidents
- Degraded
- Partial outage
- Major outage
- No data
Recent GoCardless incidents
- InformationalOct 20, 2026 · resolved in 55m
- InformationalOct 12, 2026 · resolved in 2d 23h
- Degraded performanceOct 1, 2026 · resolved in 3d 20h
Bacs Processing Issue Affecting Payments Scheduled for Collection on 2 October
Affected: Submissions
- Degraded performanceSep 24, 2026 · ongoing
- Partial outageSep 21, 2026 · resolved in 1d
Delayed BACS reportsofficial update ↗
Affected: Reporting
- InformationalSep 4, 2026 · resolved in 16d 19h
Recent Helcim incidents
- Degraded performanceOct 24, 2026 · resolved in 4h 21m
Payment processing interrupted
Affected: Payment Tools