Softwr

APIs · head to head

Convoy vs MX Technologies

Convoy logo

Convoy

APIs

Open source webhooks gateway you self-host, handling both sending and receiving

From
Free
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

  • Only Convoy has a free tier, so it costs nothing to try first.
  • Each has a real cost: Convoy the default deployment is self-hosted, so you operate Convoy plus Postgres and Redis and carry the on-call burden for the system that delivers your customers' events.; 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: Convoy covers Inbound and outbound, MX Technologies covers Account aggregation.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Convoy and MX Technologies differ
AttributeConvoyMX Technologies
Starting priceFreeOn request
Pricing modelPer month, flat rate regardless of volumequote
Free tierYesNo
PlatformsLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, CloudAPI, Web

Identical on both: 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 Convoy

  • Inbound and outbound
  • Broker-driven ingestion
  • Payload transformation
  • Portal links
  • Circuit breaking
  • Retry policies
  • OpenTelemetry export
  • Role-based access control

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.

Convoy

  • A fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party SaaS for compliance reasonsnot MX Technologies
  • A high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licencenot MX Technologies
  • A team that also receives webhooks from many providers and wants ingestion, verification and deduplication in the same gatewaynot MX Technologies
  • An engineering group that wants webhook delivery driven directly from an existing Kafka or SQS topicnot MX Technologies

MX Technologies

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

Where each one falls short

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

Convoy

  • The default deployment is self-hosted, so you operate Convoy plus Postgres and Redis and carry the on-call burden for the system that delivers your customers' events.
  • Frain Technologies is a small startup, and putting customer-facing delivery infrastructure on it means accepting real vendor continuity risk on a component that is hard to swap out quickly.
  • The premium tier at a flat 999 US dollars a month is poor value below substantial volume, while the community edition omits the portal, transformations and RBAC that most production deployments end up wanting.
  • The hosted cloud trial is capped at one project and 100 events a day, which is too small to properly evaluate the service before committing.
  • Documentation and the third-party ecosystem are thinner than the established webhook services, so unusual configurations often mean reading the Go source.

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

Convoy

Free
  • CommunityFree
    • Self-hosted open source gateway
    • Inbound and outbound webhooks
    • Automatic retries and message broker support
  • Premium$999/month
    • Flat rate irrespective of message volume
    • Portal links and payload transformation
    • RBAC, circuit breaking and white labelling
  • Enterprise$undefined/year
    • SAML SSO
    • Dedicated support with SLA
    • On-premises deployment assistance
  • Cloud$undefined/month
    • Hosted by Convoy
    • 14 day trial limited to one project and 100 events a day
    • Usage-based tiers above the trial

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 Convoy if

  • You need inbound and outbound.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud.
  • You also want broker-driven ingestion.
Convoy 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 Convoy or MX Technologies better?
Neither clearly leads. Convoy starts at Free and MX Technologies at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Convoy or MX Technologies?
Convoy has a free tier; the other does not. Paid plans start at Free for Convoy and On request for MX Technologies.
Does Convoy or MX Technologies run on more platforms?
Convoy runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Cloud. MX Technologies runs on API, Web.
Can I use Convoy for free?
Yes. Convoy has a free tier, so you can try it without paying. MX Technologies starts at On request.
What is Convoy best used for?
Convoy is most often used for a fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party saas for compliance reasons, a high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licence, a team that also receives webhooks from many providers and wants ingestion, verification and deduplication in the same gateway, an engineering group that wants webhook delivery driven directly from an existing kafka or sqs topic. Of those, a fintech that cannot route customer webhook traffic through a third-party saas for compliance reasons and a high-volume platform for which per-message webhook pricing costs more than the flat premium licence are not what MX Technologies is typically brought in for.
What can Convoy do that MX Technologies cannot?
Convoy covers Inbound and outbound, Broker-driven ingestion, Payload transformation, Portal links. MX Technologies covers Account aggregation, Transaction cleansing, Categorisation, Merchant resolution.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Convoy: Is Convoy really open source?

Yes, the community edition is open source and self-hostable, covering both inbound and outbound webhooks with retries.

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.

Convoy: What does premium cost?

A flat 999 US dollars a month, self-hosted, regardless of message volume.

MX Technologies: Does it cover Europe?

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

Convoy: Does it receive webhooks as well as send them?

Yes, inbound ingestion with verification and deduplication is a first-class feature, unlike most webhook services.

MX Technologies: Is pricing published?

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

Convoy: Do I have to self-host?

No, there is a hosted cloud, but the trial is capped at 100 events a day and self-hosting is the primary model.

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 Convoy

More on MX Technologies

Keep looking

Other head to heads