Revolut Metal review: subscription costs and travel benefits

I would judge Revolut Metal by the travel expenses and subscriptions it could replace, rather than by its connection to crypto. Julien Finance's review, published on January 28, 2026, makes that comparison possible, though it gives two different monthly prices. The creator considered Metal the best Revolut plan for their own needs and also thought the free account was useful.

For anyone weighing the upgrade, those personal preferences need to be separated from the account's terms. A benefit can sound appealing without being something you would pay for, and an insurance policy can be included without covering every trip.

Check the two Revolut Metal price quotes

Metal was a paid Revolut plan with a physical card and benefits attached to the account. Its monthly cost was quoted differently on screen and aloud:

I would check the price at checkout before doing any savings calculation. The website display provides a written reference, but neither historical figure establishes what a reader would pay now. There is no reason to choose the lower quote just because it makes the package look better.

The useful starting point is spending you already have. If an included service replaces an existing bill, that saving can be compared with the subscription charge. A service you would never buy separately does not reduce your expenses merely because it has a retail price.

An everyday payment account and a travel package also answer different needs. Someone who rarely travels or withdraws cash abroad has less reason to pay for those benefits than someone who uses them regularly. I would keep satisfaction with the basic banking app separate from the decision to pay for Metal: the upgrade has to add something useful beyond ordinary account access.

Count subscriptions you would use

The creator put the combined advertised value of the included subscriptions at 2 600 € per year, while acknowledging that not all of them were personally interesting. The displayed list included Financial Times, MasterClass, NordVPN Plus, Headspace and other services. The package also included a monthly credit for working at a WeWork coworking space.

An included subscription provides access to a service; the coworking benefit was a credit. Neither is cash paid into the account or an unrestricted refund of Metal's price. That difference matters when comparing the advertised total with the amount leaving your bank account each month.

I would count only realistic savings. An existing subscription may be replaceable under the applicable terms, but a service you might try someday belongs in a different category. Otherwise, a large catalogue can make a recurring charge look economical without changing your actual spending.

Before counting a subscription, check how to activate it and whether the included version meets your needs. This is a general precaution for bundled accounts, not evidence of a particular restriction on these services. Access alone does not tell you whether the subscription can replace the one you currently use.

The coworking credit needs the same practical check. Someone who can work at the relevant workspace may use it regularly. For someone whose location or working routine makes that unlikely, assigning the credit its full advertised value would overstate the saving.

Cash withdrawals and currencies for travel

Metal's stated allowance was 800 € per rolling month at cash machines worldwide without Revolut withdrawal fees. Charges applied above that allowance. The free plan's fee-free withdrawal allowance was 200 €.

I would check the allowance window before making a large withdrawal, especially after several smaller ones. A rolling month should not automatically be treated as a calendar month: the provider's period determines when earlier withdrawals stop counting toward the limit.

The creator gave a useful example from travel in Thailand, where some street-food businesses accepted cash rather than cards. A payment card can work for most purchases and still leave you needing cash for particular businesses. The allowance has more practical value on that kind of trip than it does for someone who rarely visits a cash machine.

Revolut's withdrawal charge is only part of the cost. Cash-machine operators can impose their own fees, and currency conversion can affect the final amount charged. A provider's fee-free allowance does not promise that every withdrawal will cost nothing.

The account also supported holding and exchanging up to 36 currencies. The creator personally used Swiss francs, dollars and euros. I see the ability to keep separate currency balances as useful for organising travel spending, but the number of currencies available does not establish how much an exchange will cost.

Compare the total cost of obtaining money in the currency you need. The withdrawal allowance is a limit to work within, not a target to use up, and its value depends on how often cash is necessary on your trips.

Travel insurance depends on payment conditions

The creator described worldwide emergency medical and dental cover, subject to paying for the relevant travel purchases with the Metal card. Their examples were flights and potentially accommodation. Simply holding the card was not the condition they described.

I would read the policy before choosing how to pay for a booking. If eligibility depends on the payment method, discovering that requirement after booking with another card could leave the trip outside the cover you expected.

The broad description of worldwide protection is a starting point, not a complete policy. Insurance has definitions, exclusions and claims requirements; the wording determines what counts as an emergency and which expenses qualify. Check that the people travelling and the type of trip fall within its scope.

Keep booking confirmations and evidence of payment, particularly where eligibility depends on using a specific card. These records connect the trip and its expenses to the payment condition rather than leaving that to be reconstructed during a claim.

I would also compare the cover with any travel policy already in place. Similar descriptions of emergency medical protection can conceal differences that matter when claiming. Overlapping cover may add less value than it first appears to, while a policy that misses a genuine need cannot be assessed by its headline description alone.

Transfers, support and card controls

Ordinary instant transfers in France and Europe were described as free, with a 40 % reduction in international-transfer fees for Metal customers. International transfers could also involve intermediary-bank charges, paid to banks involved in moving money between sender and recipient.

A fee discount still leaves a cost to assess. I would compare the final quote and the amount the recipient should receive, particularly when a transfer crosses currencies or passes through other institutions. The percentage reduction does not establish the full cost of sending the money.

The creator praised the app's ease of use and reported that customer service was available around the clock. That availability is useful, though it does not establish how quickly a particular problem will be resolved.

Customers could order a replacement card through the app and block a lost or stolen card online. Physical and virtual cards were available. A virtual card provides payment credentials for digital use, so a customer does not need to present a physical card for those payments.

I regard blocking controls as a response to a missing card, not a replacement for protecting access to the banking account. Secure the device used for banking and be cautious about messages requesting login credentials or payment approvals. Persuading a customer to authorise a payment creates a different risk from someone finding a misplaced card.

These controls are useful in day-to-day banking. Whether they justify paying for Metal depends on what the paid tier adds to the account you would otherwise use; a pleasant app alone does not settle that comparison.

Deposit protection and French account details

The creator said Revolut held a European banking licence and described deposit protection of up to 100 000 € per person. That statement concerned bank deposits, rather than every service or asset available through the app.

I would check which legal entity holds the money and which protection applies to the account. Deposit protection generally covers eligible deposits under the relevant scheme's rules. Investments and cryptoassets need a separate assessment rather than being treated as protected because they appear alongside a bank balance.

French account details, described as a French RIB, were another advantage the creator identified for French customers. A RIB contains the bank details used for payments and transfers. The comparison was with foreign account details that could bring an annual declaration obligation in France.

The creator said the French details removed the need for the foreign-account declaration on form 3916. I would keep that claim within its French tax context: reporting obligations depend on the person's circumstances and the account concerned. Domestic account details do not amount to a general exemption from financial reporting.

The creator also pointed to customer numbers and positive public reviews as reasons to consider the bank reliable. Those indicate customer acceptance, but they cannot establish that an individual account will never encounter a service problem.

Deposit protection and day-to-day access address different concerns. A guarantee covers a particular loss under specified conditions. It does not promise uninterrupted app access, immediate resolution of a disputed payment or a favourable outcome in every customer-service case.

Assess crypto spending separately

The creator briefly mentioned investing in shares and crypto and said they did not personally use the investment offering. I would not read that mention as evidence that the Metal card spends directly from a personal crypto wallet. Access to investments and the funding route for a card purchase are separate questions.

The review did not establish how crypto would fund card payments. Check the applicable account and card documents before relying on such a route, rather than assuming that the banking and travel benefits explain it.

Custody matters here because it determines who controls the assets. A custodial service holds them on a customer's behalf. With self-custody, the user controls the private keys needed to authorise transactions. A card linked to a financial account should not automatically be assumed to leave crypto in self-custody until purchase.

I would establish what happens between funding the account and paying the merchant. In general, a crypto-related payment product may sell an asset into ordinary currency before the merchant receives payment. That conversion and the card purchase can be separate events, with their own costs and records.

Spending crypto can count as a taxable sale in many countries. Disposing of the asset may create a gain or loss even when the purchase feels like an ordinary card payment. Keep conversion records and check the rules where you are taxed.

Crypto prices can also move before conversion, changing the balance's purchasing power independently of the subscription fee. For that reason, I would assess a crypto funding route through its execution terms and recordkeeping requirements. Travel insurance and subscription benefits do not resolve those questions.

Check whether it covers your banking needs

Several services were unavailable at the time of the review: French regulated savings accounts including Livret A, LDDS, Livret Jeune and LEP, student loans, a PEA and mortgages. A PEA is a French share-investment account with its own rules, so access to ordinary investments is not an equivalent offering.

An interest-paying account was available, with a rate that varied over time. I would compare its terms with the specific savings arrangement needed rather than treating all interest-paying accounts as interchangeable. The same care applies when comparing the investment offering with a PEA.

These gaps did not trouble the creator personally. They already had a Livret A elsewhere and did not currently need the lending products. Their positive assessment therefore reflected a setup in which another institution already handled part of their banking.

That is useful context for the recommendation. Someone looking for travel benefits and subscriptions is making a different choice from someone seeking a student loan or a particular French savings account. The absence of those products may be unimportant to the former and decisive for the latter.

I would make the decision around the specific expense or banking need the paid plan is meant to address. Use the applicable monthly charge in that comparison and count only benefits that can realistically replace spending. If the purpose is borrowing to buy a home, the limitation is more direct: mortgages were unavailable.