Compare two POS systems.
One complete answer.
Pick the exact pair you are considering. The result gets its own page—not a tiny table—with pricing, contracts, hardware, gotchas, operating fit, questions, and current sources.
Choose two systems. Get the complete comparison.
Every supported pair opens a dedicated research page with pricing, processing, hardware, contract and exit terms, operating fit, gotchas, questions to require in writing, and current provider sources.
Go directly to a complete pair.
Every page has its own answer, pricing analysis, contract review, gotchas, workflow guidance, sources, and questions to put in writing.
VS
Square vs Toast
Square keeps the commercial model simpler; Toast goes deeper into restaurant operations but creates more modules, devices, and contract terms to price.
Open full comparison →VS
Square vs Clover
Square reduces offer variability; Clover expands choice but makes diligence on the specific seller and hardware path mandatory.
Open full comparison →VS
Square vs Shift4 Dine
Square is easier to price and exit; Shift4 Dine can bundle more restaurant capability and service into a lower-upfront but more contract-dependent structure.
Open full comparison →VS
Square vs OctoPOS
Square offers pricing clarity and breadth; OctoPOS offers more specialized grocery workflows but requires substantially more written diligence.
Open full comparison →VSToast vs Clover
Toast concentrates more restaurant functionality inside one ecosystem; Clover lets the seller and app stack shape the system, increasing flexibility and offer variability.
Open full comparison →VSShift4 Dine vs Toast
Shift4 Dine's risk is the fee and contract stack behind a low headline; Toast's risk is the recurring module and device stack behind a polished restaurant ecosystem.
Open full comparison →VSShift4 Dine vs Clover
Shift4 Dine is more restaurant-integrated and contract-concentrated; Clover is more modular and seller-dependent.
Open full comparison →VSClover vs OctoPOS
Clover offers a larger ecosystem and clearer baseline; OctoPOS offers more specialized grocery fit with less public commercial transparency.
Open full comparison →Useful facts. Honest unknowns.
Derived compares current first-party provider material, including pricing pages, hardware pages, help documentation, and published agreements. Published does not mean guaranteed for every merchant. Not published means the provider did not state the value in the cited material. The signed order form and agreement control.
- Pricing is a stack. Software, processing, devices, add-ons, annual charges, implementation, and exit economics stay separate.
- Contracts are part of the product. Term, renewal, notice, equipment, fee changes, and termination appear before a recommendation.
- Unknown is not zero. Quote-only or missing values remain visible and become written-offer questions.
- Fit is operational. The deciding test is the merchant's actual restaurant, retail, grocery, online, outage, and closeout workflow.
Before you compare.
Why does Derived compare only two POS systems at a time?
A complete POS decision includes software, channel-specific processing, hardware, required add-ons, implementation, support, contract renewal, equipment treatment, and exit terms. Two systems leave enough room to explain those details without compressing them into unreadable columns.
What makes a POS comparison complete?
A complete comparison includes the exact configured software, card-present and card-not-present processing, every device and accessory, required services, annual and one-time charges, implementation, support, initial term, renewal, termination formula, equipment obligations, and data-export path.
Does the lower monthly POS price mean the lower total cost?
No. A low software or device headline can be offset by processing, per-device apps, online-order fees, annual charges, implementation, financing, contract length, or termination. Use the actual transaction mix and written offer.