Where Crown Coins and Pulsz differ
7 of the 8 fields do not match. The first four, in table order, are the quickest way to see whether this pair is a real decision for you:
- US visits, Jan and Aug 2026: Crown Coins, 7,422,836; Pulsz, 5,708,862.
- Minimum age: Crown Coins, Not published; Pulsz, 21+.
- States excluded: Crown Coins, Not published; Pulsz, 14 (+5 partial).
- Terms page, read 4 Nov 2026: Crown Coins, Readable v4.1, social-only; Crown Coins non-redeemable; Pulsz, Readable v5.2; 90-day redemption window.
Completeness is not quality: Crown Coins fills 5 of 8 fields and Pulsz fills 7. A brand can publish every row and still pay badly; a brand can publish three rows and pay cleanly. The count says which file has more evidence, not which operator is better.
Where the two files agree
1 of the 8 fields match exactly for Crown Coins and Pulsz: Smallest cash prize. Agreement is not an endorsement; it means the two documents say the same thing, not that the product is better.
In the wider 20-list sample, Crown Coins excludes 7 states and Pulsz excludes 14. That 7-state gap is the same trade the table describes, not a quality score.
The state lists: Crown Coins and Pulsz
Crown Coins: Not published. Pulsz: 14 (+5 partial).
Crown Coins vs Pulsz: This is the only row that can rule a reader out before sign-up. It is an operator list, not a state permission, and it can change without the statute changing.
The cash floor: Crown Coins and Pulsz
Crown Coins: Not published. Pulsz: Not published.
Crown Coins vs Pulsz: A floor is a threshold, not a promise. The processing window and the document check sit behind it and are not described by this number.
What was actually read: Crown Coins and Pulsz
Crown Coins: Readable v4.1, social-only; Crown Coins non-redeemable. Pulsz: Readable v5.2; 90-day redemption window.
Crown Coins vs Pulsz: A terms row says what was read on a date. It does not say that the document was complete, current or honoured; the verification row above is the label for that.
If you are deciding today
- Your state first. Crown Coins: Not published. Pulsz: 14 (+5 partial). If one list excludes your state, the other file is the only one to read; the comparison is decided before the offer.
- The cash floor second. Crown Coins: Not published. Pulsz: Not published. A lower floor is a lower threshold, not a better brand; the processing window sits behind both.
- The evidence third. Crown Coins is labelled listing-only; Pulsz is labelled first-party. If you need a documented process, start with the stronger label, not the larger number.
If both lists accept you and both floors are similar, the Crown Coins/Pulsz evidence labels are the tie-breaker: one file explains what was read and on what date, the other may only repeat a review.
What the two documents decide
Both documents can be read now, and they disagree about what the product is. Pulsz's v5.2 terms describe a dual-currency service with a 90-day redemption window and fourteen restricted territories. Crown's v4.1 terms describe social play only, say Crown Coins cannot be redeemed, and never mention a second redeemable currency, while the Crown homepage displays sweep-coin balances and redemption.
That mismatch is the finding, not a detail. Until Crown publishes special terms that reconcile the homepage with v4.1, a reader cannot tell whether the redeemable product still exists. Pulsz leaves a reader with a dated document and a settlement deadline; Crown leaves a contradiction.
What neither Crown Coins nor Pulsz documents
The comparison has 3 empty fields: Minimum age, Smallest cash prize, States excluded. Those are not questions this page skipped; they are facts neither file publishes in a form we could cite. An affiliate comparison fills those cells with a number; this one leaves them empty.
Crown Coins carries the label listing-only and Pulsz first-party. The weaker label sets the limit of the comparison, not the quality of either brand.
Why this pair exists
First and second by measured US traffic in 2026, and the two brands with the heaviest complaint and litigation records in this set: an F rating on one side, a settled class action on the other. The question is narrower than "which is better": If scale is the shortlist, which of the two largest operators documents more?
No ranking follows from Crown Coins vs Pulsz. The 3 empty fields are the finding: Minimum age, Smallest cash prize, States excluded. The pair exists to answer one question, not to declare a winner: If scale is the shortlist, which of the two largest operators documents more?
What would change this comparison
A terms revision at Crown Coins or Pulsz, a state list that adds or drops a state, or a new cash floor. Any of those would move a row and change the date at the top of this page. A press release would not: the table is built from documents, not announcements.
An observed redemption at Crown Coins or Pulsz would change more than any document, because it is the only evidence that the terms, the cashier and the location check work together. This pair has none, which is why it describes labels rather than outcomes.
The terms used in the Crown Coins and Pulsz comparison are defined in the glossary.