Softwr

APIs · head to head

Increase vs MX Technologies

Increase logo

Increase

APIs

Direct banking API for ACH, wires, real-time payments, accounts and cards

From
On request
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

  • Each has a real cost: Increase the published per transaction rates exclude a monthly platform fee that Increase states varies by use case, so the transparent price page cannot produce a total cost and the material part of the deal is still negotiated privately.; 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: Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, MX Technologies covers Account aggregation.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

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

Attributes where Increase and MX Technologies differ
AttributeIncreaseMX Technologies

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), platforms (API, Web), 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 Increase

  • ACH origination and receipt
  • Domestic wires
  • Real-time payments
  • Bank accounts
  • Cards
  • Cheques
  • Sandbox and simulations
  • Audit and reconciliation data

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.

Increase

  • A payroll or treasury product that needs to originate same-day ACH and wires under its own control rather than through a payment processornot MX Technologies
  • A marketplace that must hold seller balances in ledgered accounts with real account and routing numbersnot MX Technologies
  • A fintech that wants FedNow and RTP payouts so recipients are paid outside banking hoursnot MX Technologies
  • An engineering team that needs the underlying return codes and settlement timing visible in order to build correct reconciliation and retry logicnot MX Technologies

MX Technologies

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

Where each one falls short

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

Increase

  • The published per transaction rates exclude a monthly platform fee that Increase states varies by use case, so the transparent price page cannot produce a total cost and the material part of the deal is still negotiated privately.
  • Free allowances are deliberately small at ten account numbers and five physical cards, so any programme issuing accounts or cards at volume moves to quoted pricing almost immediately.
  • Banking is provided through partner banks, so programme approval, compliance obligations and the ability to launch at all depend on a bank relationship you do not control, and post-Synapse bank risk appetite has tightened considerably.
  • The API deliberately exposes payment rail mechanics rather than smoothing them, which is correct engineering but means a team without payments expertise will build reconciliation and return handling wrongly and only discover it when funds go astray.
  • Coverage is United States only, so a company with international payout needs runs a second provider and reconciles two ledgers, and the single API argument disappears at the first cross border customer.

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

Increase

On request
  • Increase Platform$undefined/month
    • Monthly fee quoted by use case and not published
    • Next-day ACH origination listed at 0.50 US dollars per transaction
    • Same-day ACH origination listed at 2.00 per transaction

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 Increase if

  • You need ach origination and receipt.
  • You work on API, Web.
  • You also want domestic wires.
Increase 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 Increase or MX Technologies better?
Neither clearly leads. Increase starts at On request and MX Technologies at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Increase or MX Technologies?
Increase starts at On request and MX Technologies at On request.
Does Increase or MX Technologies run on more platforms?
Both run on API, Web, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is Increase best used for?
Increase is most often used for a payroll or treasury product that needs to originate same-day ach and wires under its own control rather than through a payment processor, a marketplace that must hold seller balances in ledgered accounts with real account and routing numbers, a fintech that wants fednow and rtp payouts so recipients are paid outside banking hours, an engineering team that needs the underlying return codes and settlement timing visible in order to build correct reconciliation and retry logic. Of those, a payroll or treasury product that needs to originate same-day ach and wires under its own control rather than through a payment processor and a marketplace that must hold seller balances in ledgered accounts with real account and routing numbers are not what MX Technologies is typically brought in for.
What can Increase do that MX Technologies cannot?
Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Domestic wires, Real-time payments, Bank accounts. MX Technologies covers Account aggregation, Transaction cleansing, Categorisation, Merchant resolution.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Increase: Does Increase publish its pricing?

Partly. Per transaction fees for ACH, wires, RTP, FedNow and cards are listed publicly. The monthly platform fee is not, and it is described only as varying by use case.

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.

Increase: Who holds the deposits?

Partner banks, not Increase itself. That relationship determines your programme approval, your compliance obligations and your risk if the bank changes appetite.

MX Technologies: Does it cover Europe?

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

Increase: Is it international?

No. Increase covers United States rails only, so cross border payouts require a second provider.

MX Technologies: Is pricing published?

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

Increase: How is it different from a middleware BaaS platform?

It exposes the rails rather than abstracting them, showing real return codes and settlement timing. That suits teams who understand payments and punishes teams who do not.

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 Increase

More on MX Technologies

Keep looking

Other head to heads