Softwr

APIs · head to head

Increase vs Swan

Increase logo

Increase

APIs

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

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Swan logo

Swan

APIs

European banking-as-a-service platform for embedding accounts, cards and payments into other products

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.; 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: Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Swan covers Embedded business accounts.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Increase and Swan actually diverge.

Attributes where Increase and Swan differ
AttributeIncreaseSwan
PlatformsAPI, WebWeb, 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 Increase

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

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.

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 Swan
  • A marketplace that must hold seller balances in ledgered accounts with real account and routing numbersnot Swan
  • A fintech that wants FedNow and RTP payouts so recipients are paid outside banking hoursnot Swan
  • An engineering team that needs the underlying return codes and settlement timing visible in order to build correct reconciliation and retry logicnot Swan

Swan

  • A vertical SaaS platform wanting to embed business bank accounts under its own brandnot Increase
  • A marketplace wanting to issue cards to sellers or partners without becoming a licensed banknot Increase
  • A company wanting SEPA payment initiation embedded directly into its own productnot Increase
  • A European fintech wanting to avoid a six-figure setup fee and long lock-in typical of legacy banking-as-a-service dealsnot 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.

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

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

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 Increase if

  • You need ach origination and receipt.
  • You work on API, Web.
  • You also want domestic wires.
Increase review

Choose Swan if

  • You need embedded business accounts.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want card issuing.
Swan review

Questions people ask

Is Increase or Swan better?
Neither clearly leads. Increase 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, Increase or Swan?
Increase starts at On request and Swan at On request.
Does Increase or Swan run on more platforms?
Increase runs on API, Web. Swan runs on Web, API.
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 Swan is typically brought in for.
What can Increase do that Swan cannot?
Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Domestic wires, Real-time payments, Bank accounts. Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Card issuing, SEPA payments, Local account localisation.

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.

Swan: Which countries does Swan offer local accounts in?

France, Germany and Spain specifically, alongside broader SEPA payment coverage.

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.

Swan: Is pricing published?

No, Swan describes a usage-based, no-large-setup-fee philosophy but requires a quote for actual numbers.

Increase: Is it international?

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

Swan: Who regulates Swan?

France's ACPR (Autorite de Controle Prudentiel et de Resolution), as a licensed e-money institution.

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.

Share

Related pages

More on Increase

More on Swan

Keep looking

Other head to heads