APIs · head to head
Akoya vs Toqio
Akoya
APIs
Bank-owned, token-based open finance network that replaces screen scraping for US financial data
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Toqio
APIs
No code platform for building embedded finance products on your own providers
- 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.; Toqio toqio holds no licence and provides no sponsor bank, so you must find, contract and manage regulated providers yourself, which is the slowest part of any embedded finance launch.
- They diverge on capability: Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Toqio covers No code product builder.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Akoya and Toqio 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 Toqio
- No code product builder
- Provider orchestration
- Account and card modules
- Embedded financing
- Back office tooling
- Multi entity and multi brand
- White label mobile apps
- Marketplace of providers
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 Toqio
- A tax preparation product retrieving tax forms and cost basis directly from the institution rather than asking users to upload PDFsnot Toqio
- A lender that needs a permissioning trail defensible under CFPB section 1033 rather than a credential-sharing arrangementnot Toqio
- A bank that wants to meet data sharing obligations through one network connection instead of building and policing its own developer interfacenot Toqio
Toqio
- A manufacturer offering branded working capital finance to its dealer networknot Akoya
- A B2B marketplace launching accounts and cards for its sellers without becoming regulated itselfnot Akoya
- A corporate that wants to switch card issuer without rebuilding its customer facing productnot Akoya
- A group launching the same embedded finance product across several markets with different local providersnot 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.
Toqio
- Toqio holds no licence and provides no sponsor bank, so you must find, contract and manage regulated providers yourself, which is the slowest part of any embedded finance launch.
- Because it orchestrates rather than provides, the customer experience is only as good as the underlying bank or issuer, and Toqio cannot fix a partner's settlement delays or outages.
- Pricing is quoted with no public rate card, so comparing it against building in house or against a bundled banking as a service provider requires a full sales process.
- With around EUR 30 million raised in total it is a small supplier to underpin a financial product a large corporate expects to run for a decade, which raises real continuity questions in procurement.
- No code configuration covers standard patterns well but bespoke customer journeys eventually require custom development, at which point the main advantage over building directly on provider APIs narrows.
Pricing, plan by plan
Akoya
On request- Akoya Data Access$undefined/year
- Usage-based pricing quoted by data product and call volume
- Separate commercial terms for data recipients and for financial institutions joining the network
- No published rate card
Toqio
On request- Toqio platform$undefined/year
- Quoted per customer, typically setup plus recurring platform fee
- Regulated provider fees are separate and contracted by you
- Card interchange and lending economics belong to your provider agreements
Which should you pick?
Choose Toqio if
- You need no code product builder.
- You work on Web, iOS, Android, API.
- You also want provider orchestration.
Questions people ask
- Is Akoya or Toqio better?
- Neither clearly leads. Akoya starts at On request and Toqio at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Akoya or Toqio?
- Akoya starts at On request and Toqio at On request.
- Does Akoya or Toqio run on more platforms?
- Akoya runs on Web. Toqio runs on Web, iOS, Android, 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 Toqio is typically brought in for.
- What can Akoya do that Toqio cannot?
- Akoya covers FDX standard APIs, Token-based access, Investment data, Accounts, balances and transactions. Toqio covers No code product builder, Provider orchestration, Account and card modules, Embedded financing.
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.
Toqio: Does Toqio provide the banking licence?
No, deliberately. You contract your own bank, issuer or lender, which is why you can replace them without rebuilding the product.
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.
Toqio: Who is it aimed at?
Large corporates and B2B ecosystem operators embedding finance for suppliers, dealers or marketplace sellers, not consumer fintech startups.
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.
Toqio: How much does it cost?
Not published. Expect a setup fee plus a recurring platform fee, with all regulated provider costs on top and separately contracted.
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 Highnote
- Akoya vs Unit
- Akoya vs Solaris
- Akoya vs Thredd
- Akoya vs Swan
- Akoya vs Weavr
- Akoya vs Fintech Farm
- Akoya vs Vodeno
- Akoya vs Column
- Akoya vs Synctera
- Akoya vs Astra
- Akoya vs Marqeta
- Akoya vs Meniga
- Akoya vs Moov
- Akoya vs PubNub
- Akoya vs Skaleet
- Toqio vs Yodlee
- Toqio vs MX Technologies
- Toqio vs Ozone API
- Toqio vs Aiia
- Toqio vs Tink
- Toqio vs Salt Edge
- Toqio vs Trustly
- Toqio vs Lithic
- Toqio vs Token.io
- Toqio vs Bud Financial
- Toqio vs Tribe Payments
- Toqio vs Method Financial
- Toqio vs Asyncapi
- Toqio vs AWS API Gateway
- Toqio vs Microsoft Azure API Management
- Toqio vs Basis Theory
- Toqio vs Boomi API Management
- Toqio vs Codat
- Toqio vs Highnote
- Toqio vs Unit
- Toqio vs Solaris
- Toqio vs Thredd
- Toqio vs Swan
- Toqio vs Weavr
- Toqio vs Fintech Farm
- Toqio vs Vodeno
- Toqio vs Column
- Toqio vs Synctera
- Toqio vs Astra
- Toqio vs Marqeta
- Toqio vs Meniga
- Toqio vs Moov
- Toqio vs PubNub
- Toqio vs Skaleet