Softwr

APIs · head to head

Enfuce vs Lithic

Enfuce logo

Enfuce

APIs

European issuer processor holding its own payment institution licence

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Lithic logo

Lithic

APIs

API-first card issuing platform with direct Visa, Mastercard and Amex network connections

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Enfuce coverage is European, so a programme that also needs US or Asian issuing requires a separate processor and a separate integration.; Lithic pricing is entirely undisclosed, so a company cannot compare total cost against Marqeta, Galileo or Highnote without a sales conversation.
  • They diverge on capability: Enfuce covers Licensed issuing, Lithic covers Direct network connections.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Enfuce and Lithic actually diverge.

Attributes where Enfuce and Lithic differ
AttributeEnfuceLithic
PlatformsWeb, REST APIWeb, API

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 Enfuce

  • Licensed issuing
  • Card processing
  • Tokenisation
  • Spend controls
  • Multi-currency programmes
  • Carbon and data services

Only in Lithic

  • Direct network connections
  • Processor Client mode
  • Lithic Program Management
  • Card lifecycle APIs
  • Sandbox environment
  • Real-time authorization controls

What people use each for

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

Enfuce

  • A European fintech launching cards without spending two quarters finding a sponsor banknot Lithic
  • A corporate issuing fuel or expense cards across several EU countries on one programmenot Lithic
  • A bank migrating an existing European card portfolio off a legacy processornot Lithic
  • A programme that must report cardholder transaction carbon data to meet sustainability commitmentsnot Lithic

Lithic

  • A fintech wanting direct Visa or Mastercard network access rather than routing through a third-party processornot Enfuce
  • A company that already holds its own issuing licence and wants API access without full programme managementnot Enfuce
  • A neobank or expense platform wanting Lithic to manage bank and network relationships end to endnot Enfuce
  • A product team prototyping a card programme in sandbox before committing to a launchnot Enfuce

Where each one falls short

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

Enfuce

  • Coverage is European, so a programme that also needs US or Asian issuing requires a separate processor and a separate integration.
  • Where Enfuce acts as the licensed issuer it takes on regulatory risk and prices accordingly, so the convenience of skipping a sponsor bank is not free.
  • European interchange caps limit programme revenue far below US levels, so business cases imported from a US card model do not survive the move.
  • It is a smaller supplier than Marqeta or i2c, which means less negotiating room on scheme fees and a thinner partner ecosystem around it.
  • Pricing is entirely quoted with monthly minimums, so low-volume programmes carry a fixed cost that does not scale down with a slow launch.

Lithic

  • Pricing is entirely undisclosed, so a company cannot compare total cost against Marqeta, Galileo or Highnote without a sales conversation.
  • Choosing Processor Client mode still leaves the company responsible for holding its own issuing licence and managing the regulatory relationship, which is a substantial undertaking many teams underestimate.
  • As with any card infrastructure provider, an outage or network issue at Lithic becomes a direct outage for every card programme built on it, and a customer has limited visibility into root cause during an incident.
  • Building a card programme on API infrastructure requires real engineering investment; it is not a plug-and-play product for a non-technical team.
  • Switching card infrastructure providers after launch is a major undertaking involving card reissuance and programme migration, so the initial choice carries lasting lock-in.

Pricing, plan by plan

Enfuce

On request
  • Enfuce issuing and processing$undefined/year
    • Per-active-card and per-transaction fees with monthly minimums
    • Higher pricing where Enfuce acts as licensed issuer rather than processor only
    • Interchange arrangements depend on who holds the issuing licence

Lithic

On request
  • Lithic$undefined/year
    • Volume and interchange-based pricing, not published
    • Separate Processor Client and Program Management pricing tracks
    • Custom quote required via sales

Which should you pick?

Choose Enfuce if

  • You need licensed issuing.
  • You work on Web, REST API.
  • You also want card processing.
Enfuce review

Choose Lithic if

  • You need direct network connections.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want processor client mode.
Lithic review

Questions people ask

Is Enfuce or Lithic better?
Neither clearly leads. Enfuce starts at On request and Lithic at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Enfuce or Lithic?
Enfuce starts at On request and Lithic at On request.
Does Enfuce or Lithic run on more platforms?
Enfuce runs on Web, REST API. Lithic runs on Web, API.
What is Enfuce best used for?
Enfuce is most often used for a european fintech launching cards without spending two quarters finding a sponsor bank, a corporate issuing fuel or expense cards across several eu countries on one programme, a bank migrating an existing european card portfolio off a legacy processor, a programme that must report cardholder transaction carbon data to meet sustainability commitments. Of those, a european fintech launching cards without spending two quarters finding a sponsor bank and a corporate issuing fuel or expense cards across several eu countries on one programme are not what Lithic is typically brought in for.
What can Enfuce do that Lithic cannot?
Enfuce covers Licensed issuing, Card processing, Tokenisation, Spend controls. Lithic covers Direct network connections, Processor Client mode, Lithic Program Management, Card lifecycle APIs.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Enfuce: Do I need my own licence to use Enfuce?

Not necessarily. Enfuce holds Finnish payment institution authorisation and can act as issuer, or process under your own licence if you have one.

Lithic: Does Lithic publish pricing?

No, pricing is volume-based and requires a sales conversation.

Enfuce: Which regions does it cover?

Europe. It is not a route to issuing cards in the United States or Asia.

Lithic: What is the difference between Processor Client and Program Management?

Processor Client suits companies with their own issuing licence and bank relationships; Program Management is for companies wanting Lithic to coordinate those relationships on their behalf.

Enfuce: How does interchange work?

Who holds the issuing licence determines who receives interchange, so the licensing choice and the revenue model are the same decision.

Lithic: Which networks does it connect to?

Visa, Mastercard and American Express directly.

Share

Related pages

More on Enfuce

More on Lithic

Keep looking

Other head to heads