APIs · head to head
Akoya vs Swan
Akoya
APIs
Bank-owned, token-based open finance network that replaces screen scraping for US financial data
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Swan
APIs
European banking-as-a-service platform for embedding accounts, cards and payments into other products
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
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.; Swan its regulatory base and strongest local account coverage are French and European, so companies needing US, UK-post-Brexit-specific, or broader global banking-as-a-service need an additional provider.
- They diverge on capability: Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Swan covers Embedded business accounts.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Akoya and Swan actually diverge.
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 Swan
- Embedded business accounts
- Card issuing
- SEPA payments
- Local account localisation
- ACPR regulation
- Usage-based pricing
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 Swan
- A tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload PDFsnot Swan
- A lender that needs a permissioning trail defensible under CFPB section 1033 rather than a credential-sharing arrangementnot Swan
- A bank that wants to meet data sharing obligations through one network connection instead of building and policing its own developer interfacenot Swan
Swan
- A vertical SaaS platform wanting to embed business bank accounts under its own brandnot Akoya
- A marketplace wanting to issue cards to sellers or partners without becoming a licensed banknot Akoya
- A company wanting SEPA payment initiation embedded directly into its own productnot Akoya
- A European fintech wanting to avoid a six-figure setup fee and long lock-in typical of legacy banking-as-a-service dealsnot 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.
Swan
- Its regulatory base and strongest local account coverage are French and European, so companies needing US, UK-post-Brexit-specific, or broader global banking-as-a-service need an additional provider.
- Pricing is described only philosophically (usage-based, no big setup fee) rather than published as an actual rate card, so a company still needs a sales conversation to get real numbers.
- Embedding banking features into a product is a substantial compliance and design undertaking regardless of the vendor, and Swan handling the licence does not remove a platform's own KYC, AML and customer support obligations for the accounts it offers.
- As a comparatively young, single-country-licensed e-money institution, its balance sheet and regulatory standing carry more concentration risk than a banking-as-a-service offering backed by an established, multi-jurisdiction bank.
- Local account depth is explicitly limited to France, Germany and Spain, so a platform needing native local accounts in other European countries may find coverage thinner than expected.
Pricing, plan by plan
Akoya
On request- Akoya Data Access$undefined/year
- Usage-based pricing quoted by data product and call volume
- Separate commercial terms for data recipients and for financial institutions joining the network
- No published rate card
Swan
On request- Swan$undefined/month
- Usage-based pricing, no published rate card
- No long-term contract or large setup fee required
- Custom quote based on current, not forecast, usage
Which should you pick?
Choose Swan if
- You need embedded business accounts.
- You work on Web, API.
- You also want card issuing.
Questions people ask
- Is Akoya or Swan better?
- Neither clearly leads. Akoya starts at On request and Swan at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Akoya or Swan?
- Akoya starts at On request and Swan at On request.
- Does Akoya or Swan run on more platforms?
- Akoya runs on Web. Swan runs on Web, API.
- 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 Swan is typically brought in for.
- What can Akoya do that Swan cannot?
- Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Token-based access, Investment data, Accounts, balances and transactions. Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Card issuing, SEPA payments, Local account localisation.
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.
Swan: Which countries does Swan offer local accounts in?
France, Germany and Spain specifically, alongside broader SEPA payment coverage.
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.
Swan: Is pricing published?
No, Swan describes a usage-based, no-large-setup-fee philosophy but requires a quote for actual numbers.
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.
Swan: Who regulates Swan?
France's ACPR (Autorite de Controle Prudentiel et de Resolution), as a licensed e-money institution.
Akoya: Does it help with CFPB section 1033?
It is designed around it, providing tokenised permissioned access and consumer revocation rather than credential sharing.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Akoya vs Yodlee
- Akoya vs MX Technologies
- Akoya vs Ozone API
- Akoya vs Aiia
- Akoya vs Tink
- Akoya vs Salt Edge
- Akoya vs Trustly
- Akoya vs Lithic
- Akoya vs Token.io
- Akoya vs Bud Financial
- Akoya vs Tribe Payments
- Akoya vs Method Financial
- Akoya vs Asyncapi
- Akoya vs AWS API Gateway
- Akoya vs Microsoft Azure API Management
- Akoya vs Basis Theory
- Akoya vs Boomi API Management
- Akoya vs Codat
- Akoya vs Vodeno
- Akoya vs Yapily
- Akoya vs Unit
- Akoya vs Griffin
- Akoya vs Weavr
- Akoya vs Fintech Farm
- Akoya vs Solaris
- Akoya vs Treasury Prime
- Akoya vs Synctera
- Akoya vs Astra
- Akoya vs Treblle
- Akoya vs Tuum
- Swan vs Yodlee
- Swan vs MX Technologies
- Swan vs Ozone API
- Swan vs Aiia
- Swan vs Tink
- Swan vs Salt Edge
- Swan vs Trustly
- Swan vs Lithic
- Swan vs Token.io
- Swan vs Bud Financial
- Swan vs Tribe Payments
- Swan vs Method Financial
- Swan vs Asyncapi
- Swan vs AWS API Gateway
- Swan vs Microsoft Azure API Management
- Swan vs Basis Theory
- Swan vs Boomi API Management
- Swan vs Codat
- Swan vs Vodeno
- Swan vs Yapily
- Swan vs Unit
- Swan vs Griffin
- Swan vs Weavr
- Swan vs Fintech Farm
- Swan vs Solaris
- Swan vs Treasury Prime
- Swan vs Synctera
- Swan vs Astra
- Swan vs Treblle
- Swan vs Tuum