APIs · head to head
Increase vs Token.io
Increase
APIs
Direct banking API for ACH, wires, real-time payments, accounts and cards
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Token.io
APIs
Account to account pay by bank infrastructure across the UK and Europe
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
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.; Token.io account to account payments carry no chargeback scheme, so merchants gain cost savings but consumers lose the dispute protection cards provide, which limits adoption in general retail.
- They diverge on capability: Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Token.io covers Payment initiation.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Increase and Token.io 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 Increase
- ACH origination and receipt
- Domestic wires
- Real-time payments
- Bank accounts
- Cards
- Cheques
- Sandbox and simulations
- Audit and reconciliation data
Only in Token.io
- Payment initiation
- Variable recurring payments
- Bank network coverage
- giroAPI membership
- Payouts and refunds
- Data and account information
- Hosted payment pages
- Reconciliation reporting
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 Token.io
- A marketplace that must hold seller balances in ledgered accounts with real account and routing numbersnot Token.io
- A fintech that wants FedNow and RTP payouts so recipients are paid outside banking hoursnot Token.io
- An engineering team that needs the underlying return codes and settlement timing visible in order to build correct reconciliation and retry logicnot Token.io
Token.io
- A utility or telecom collecting high value bills where card interchange makes acceptance expensivenot Increase
- An investment or trading platform funding customer accounts without card chargeback exposurenot Increase
- A payment service provider adding pay by bank to its merchant proposition without building bank connectivitynot Increase
- A German merchant using giroAPI scheme access for recurring and future dated bank paymentsnot 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.
Token.io
- Account to account payments carry no chargeback scheme, so merchants gain cost savings but consumers lose the dispute protection cards provide, which limits adoption in general retail.
- Conversion depends on each bank's own authentication journey, and slow or broken bank redirects cost sales in ways the merchant cannot fix or even always diagnose.
- Variable recurring payments beyond sweeping are still being rolled out unevenly across banks and markets, so a subscription use case may be supported at one bank and not another.
- Token.io initiates payments rather than acting as acquirer of record, so merchants still need settlement, safeguarding and reconciliation arrangements elsewhere.
- Coverage and feature parity vary by country, so a pan European rollout means different capabilities and different bank behaviour in each market rather than one uniform product.
Pricing, plan by plan
Increase
On request- Increase Platform$undefined/month
- Monthly fee quoted by use case and not published
- Next-day ACH origination listed at 0.50 US dollars per transaction
- Same-day ACH origination listed at 2.00 per transaction
Token.io
On request- Token.io platform$undefined/year
- Quoted per customer, typically per initiated payment
- Volume tiers and monthly minimums are common
- No interchange, so unit cost is usually well below card acceptance
Which should you pick?
Choose Increase if
- You need ach origination and receipt.
- You work on API, Web.
- You also want domestic wires.
Choose Token.io if
- You need payment initiation.
- You work on Web, API.
- You also want variable recurring payments.
Questions people ask
- Is Increase or Token.io better?
- Neither clearly leads. Increase starts at On request and Token.io at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Increase or Token.io?
- Increase starts at On request and Token.io at On request.
- Does Increase or Token.io run on more platforms?
- Increase runs on API, Web. Token.io 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 Token.io is typically brought in for.
- What can Increase do that Token.io cannot?
- Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Domestic wires, Real-time payments, Bank accounts. Token.io covers Payment initiation, Variable recurring payments, Bank network coverage, giroAPI membership.
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.
Token.io: Does pay by bank remove card fees?
It removes interchange and scheme fees, so unit cost is normally far below card acceptance, particularly on high value payments.
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.
Token.io: What about chargebacks?
There are none. That is the cost saving and the consumer protection gap, which is why it suits bills, top ups and account funding more than retail.
Increase: Is it international?
No. Increase covers United States rails only, so cross border payouts require a second provider.
Token.io: Is Token.io regulated?
Yes, it is an authorised third party provider under UK and European open banking rules, but it initiates payments rather than holding merchant funds as an acquirer.
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.
Related pages
Other head to heads
- Increase vs Dwolla
- Increase vs Astra
- Increase vs Unit
- Increase vs Treasury Prime
- Increase vs Sila
- Increase vs Moov
- Increase vs Column
- Increase vs Lithic
- Increase vs Volt
- Increase vs Swan
- Increase vs TrueLayer
- Increase vs Griffin
- Increase vs KeystoneJS
- Increase vs Kong
- Increase vs Liveblocks
- Increase vs Moesif
- Increase vs Ozone API
- Increase vs Parse Server
- Increase vs Tink
- Increase vs Brite Payments
- Increase vs Neonomics
- Increase vs Fintecture
- Increase vs Trustly
- Increase vs Yapily
- Increase vs Enable Banking
- Increase vs Zimpler
- Increase vs Salt Edge
- Increase vs Tribe Payments
- Increase vs Flybits
- Increase vs i2c
- Token.io vs Dwolla
- Token.io vs Astra
- Token.io vs Unit
- Token.io vs Treasury Prime
- Token.io vs Sila
- Token.io vs Moov
- Token.io vs Column
- Token.io vs Lithic
- Token.io vs Volt
- Token.io vs Swan
- Token.io vs TrueLayer
- Token.io vs Griffin
- Token.io vs KeystoneJS
- Token.io vs Kong
- Token.io vs Liveblocks
- Token.io vs Moesif
- Token.io vs Ozone API
- Token.io vs Parse Server
- Token.io vs Tink
- Token.io vs Brite Payments
- Token.io vs Neonomics
- Token.io vs Fintecture
- Token.io vs Trustly
- Token.io vs Yapily
- Token.io vs Enable Banking
- Token.io vs Zimpler
- Token.io vs Salt Edge
- Token.io vs Tribe Payments
- Token.io vs Flybits
- Token.io vs i2c