Softwr

APIs · head to head

Akoya vs MX Technologies

Akoya logo

Akoya

APIs

Bank-owned, token-based open finance network that replaces screen scraping for US financial data

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
MX Technologies logo

MX Technologies

APIs

US financial data aggregation with heavy transaction cleansing and enrichment

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Akoya coverage reaches several thousand institutions but does not match aggregators that can still scrape, so applications needing the long tail of small credit unions will run a second data provider alongside it.; MX Technologies coverage is United States focused, so any product with European or other international users runs a second aggregator and reconciles two data models, which removes most of the single vendor argument.
  • They diverge on capability: Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, MX Technologies covers Account aggregation.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Akoya and MX Technologies actually diverge.

Attributes where Akoya and MX Technologies differ
AttributeAkoyaMX Technologies
PlatformsWebAPI, Web

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated), category (APIs).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Akoya

  • FDX standard APIs
  • Token-based access
  • Investment data
  • Accounts, balances and transactions
  • Statements and tax forms
  • Customer identity
  • Consumer permission management
  • Single integration

Only in MX Technologies

  • Account aggregation
  • Transaction cleansing
  • Categorisation
  • Merchant resolution
  • Account verification
  • Balance and funds checks
  • Data enhancement APIs
  • Consent and connection management

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Akoya

  • A wealth management platform that needs Fidelity brokerage holdings and tax lots, which cannot be scraped since Fidelity closed that route in October 2023not MX Technologies
  • A tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload PDFsnot MX Technologies
  • A lender that needs a permissioning trail defensible under CFPB section 1033 rather than a credential-sharing arrangementnot MX Technologies
  • A bank that wants to meet data sharing obligations through one network connection instead of building and policing its own developer interfacenot MX Technologies

MX Technologies

  • A credit union building a personal finance view in its own app that needs its own transaction descriptions made readablenot Akoya
  • A lender using cash flow underwriting that needs categorised income and expense data rather than raw transaction stringsnot Akoya
  • A bank wanting account verification and balance checks before initiating ACH debits to reduce returnsnot Akoya
  • A fintech that already aggregates data elsewhere and licenses only the enrichment layer to clean what it hasnot Akoya

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Akoya

  • Coverage reaches several thousand institutions but does not match aggregators that can still scrape, so applications needing the long tail of small credit unions will run a second data provider alongside it.
  • The network is owned by large banks, so roadmap and coverage priorities reflect owner interests rather than those of the fintechs consuming the data, and a recipient has no leverage over which institutions are added next.
  • Data availability is decided institution by institution, meaning a bank may expose balances but not transactions or investments, and recipients must verify field-level coverage per institution rather than assume the FDX model is fully populated.
  • Pricing is unpublished and usage based, which makes it difficult to compare against aggregator pricing during a build-versus-buy decision and forces a sales cycle before you can model cost.
  • The token model requires the institution to have implemented its side, so newly onboarded institutions arrive on the institution timetable, not yours, and a launch dependent on a specific bank can slip badly.

MX Technologies

  • Coverage is United States focused, so any product with European or other international users runs a second aggregator and reconciles two data models, which removes most of the single vendor argument.
  • Nothing is published on price and contracts are enterprise shaped, so a small fintech cannot estimate cost or start building without a sales process, unlike self-serve competitors.
  • Data enhancement is the differentiator and is licensed separately from aggregation, so the quoted aggregation price is not the price of the product people actually buy it for.
  • Categorisation and merchant resolution are statistical and get business to business and unusual transactions wrong more often than consumer retail, so lending decisions built on categorised data need their own review layer.
  • As the United States moves to regulated API access, connection quality depends on what each institution exposes, and the long tail of small banks and credit unions remains the weakest part of any aggregator including this one.

Pricing, plan by plan

Akoya

On request
  • Akoya Data Access$undefined/year
    • Usage-based pricing quoted by data product and call volume
    • Separate commercial terms for data recipients and for financial institutions joining the network
    • No published rate card

MX Technologies

On request
  • MX Platform$undefined/year
    • Priced by connected users, API calls and modules
    • Data enhancement licensed separately from aggregation
    • Enterprise contracts aimed at financial institutions

Which should you pick?

Choose Akoya if

  • You need fdx standard apis.
  • You also want token-based access.
Akoya review

Choose MX Technologies if

  • You need account aggregation.
  • You work on API, Web.
  • You also want transaction cleansing.
MX Technologies review

Questions people ask

Is Akoya or MX Technologies better?
Neither clearly leads. Akoya starts at On request and MX Technologies at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Akoya or MX Technologies?
Akoya starts at On request and MX Technologies at On request.
Does Akoya or MX Technologies run on more platforms?
Akoya runs on Web. MX Technologies runs on API, Web.
What is Akoya best used for?
Akoya is most often used for a wealth management platform that needs fidelity brokerage holdings and tax lots, which cannot be scraped since fidelity closed that route in october 2023, a tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload pdfs, a lender that needs a permissioning trail defensible under cfpb section 1033 rather than a credential-sharing arrangement, a bank that wants to meet data sharing obligations through one network connection instead of building and policing its own developer interface. Of those, a wealth management platform that needs fidelity brokerage holdings and tax lots, which cannot be scraped since fidelity closed that route in october 2023 and a tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload pdfs are not what MX Technologies is typically brought in for.
What can Akoya do that MX Technologies cannot?
Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Token-based access, Investment data, Accounts, balances and transactions. MX Technologies covers Account aggregation, Transaction cleansing, Categorisation, Merchant resolution.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Akoya: Who owns Akoya?

A group of large US banks. It was spun out of Fidelity, which is why Fidelity data access runs through it.

MX Technologies: What does MX do that Plaid does not?

It sells transaction cleansing, categorisation and merchant resolution as a first class product, including on data you already hold, which is why financial institutions rather than startups are its core customers.

Akoya: Is Akoya screen scraping?

No. It uses FDX standard APIs with OpenID Connect tokens, so credentials are never shared with or stored by the data recipient.

MX Technologies: Does it cover Europe?

No. MX is United States focused. European coverage requires a different provider such as Tink.

Akoya: Can we use Akoya alone instead of an aggregator?

Usually not. Its investment and large-institution coverage is excellent, but the long tail of smaller institutions is thinner, so most teams run both.

MX Technologies: Is pricing published?

No. Contracts are quoted by connected users, call volume and modules, with enhancement licensed separately from aggregation.

Akoya: Does it help with CFPB section 1033?

It is designed around it, providing tokenised permissioned access and consumer revocation rather than credential sharing.

MX Technologies: Does it use screen scraping?

It uses direct bank APIs where institutions expose them and credential based connections elsewhere. The credential path is being deprecated across the industry, and coverage quality now tracks which banks have real APIs.

Share

Related pages

More on Akoya

More on MX Technologies

Keep looking

Other head to heads