Softwr

APIs · head to head

Akoya vs Paw

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
Paw logo

Paw

APIs

Full-featured REST client for macOS with powerful scripting and testing

From
$99/one-time
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.; Paw no specific pricing amounts published for subscription tiers
  • They diverge on capability: Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Paw covers REST Client.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Akoya and Paw actually diverge.

Attributes where Akoya and Paw differ
AttributeAkoyaPaw
Starting priceOn request$99/one-time
Pricing modelquotesubscription
PlatformsWebMacOS
FoundedUnknown2013

Identical on both: 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 Paw

  • REST Client
  • Scripting
  • Dynamic Values
  • Slack
  • GitHub
  • Custom extensions
  • MacOS support

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 Paw
  • A tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload PDFsnot Paw
  • A lender that needs a permissioning trail defensible under CFPB section 1033 rather than a credential-sharing arrangementnot Paw
  • A bank that wants to meet data sharing obligations through one network connection instead of building and policing its own developer interfacenot Paw

Paw

  • API Developmentnot Akoya
  • API Gatewaynot Akoya
  • API Testingnot Akoya
  • API Documentationnot Akoya
  • Microservicesnot 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.

Paw

  • No specific pricing amounts published for subscription tiers
  • Individual and volume licensing requires direct contact
  • Limited details on team subscription pricing

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

Paw

$99/one-time
  • Standard$99/one-time
    • Full REST client
    • Advanced scripting
    • Extensions
  • Annual License$49/yearly
    • All features
    • Updates
    • Priority support

Which should you pick?

Choose Akoya if

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

Choose Paw if

  • You need rest client.
  • You work on MacOS.
  • You also want scripting.
Paw review

Questions people ask

Is Akoya or Paw better?
Neither clearly leads. Akoya starts at On request and Paw at $99/one-time, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Akoya or Paw?
Akoya starts at On request and Paw at $99/one-time.
Does Akoya or Paw run on more platforms?
Akoya runs on Web. Paw runs on MacOS.
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 Paw is typically brought in for.
What can Akoya do that Paw cannot?
Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Token-based access, Investment data, Accounts, balances and transactions. Paw covers REST Client, Scripting, Dynamic Values, Slack.

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.

Paw: How much does RapidAPI for Mac (Paw) cost?

Paw offers a free tier for personal and professional use. Paid subscription plans are available on monthly and yearly billing, but specific pricing amounts are not disclosed and require direct contact with RapidAPI.

Source
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.

Paw: Is there a free version of Paw?

Yes, RapidAPI for Mac (Paw) is free for both personal and professional use.

Source
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.

Paw: What features are included in the free version of Paw?

The free tier includes HTTP client capabilities for API testing, API documentation, personal sync across devices, and support for Swagger, RAML, and API Blueprint formats.

Source
Akoya: Does it help with CFPB section 1033?

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

Paw: What additional features do Paw team subscriptions include?

Team subscription plans include all personal features plus collaborative tools, team project access, synchronized workflows with safe data merges, and real-time notifications and updates.

Source
Share

Related pages

More on Akoya

More on Paw

Keep looking

Other head to heads