Softwr

APIs · head to head

Increase vs Treasury Prime

Increase logo

Increase

APIs

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

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Treasury Prime logo

Treasury Prime

APIs

Banking as a service platform sold to sponsor banks rather than to fintechs

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.; Treasury Prime a fintech cannot buy Treasury Prime directly since the 2024 pivot, so the sales process starts with finding a sponsor bank willing to take your programme, which adds months and removes most of your negotiating leverage on fees.
  • They diverge on capability: Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Treasury Prime covers BankOS.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Increase and Treasury Prime actually diverge.

Attributes where Increase and Treasury Prime differ
AttributeIncreaseTreasury Prime

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 Treasury Prime

  • BankOS
  • OneKey Banking
  • Deposit accounts
  • Payments
  • Card issuing
  • Bank oversight tooling
  • Ledger and reconciliation
  • Programme onboarding

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

Treasury Prime

  • A community or regional bank that wants to run an embedded finance line with examiner-acceptable oversight of its fintech programmesnot Increase
  • A fintech that has already chosen its sponsor bank and needs API access to that bank rather than to a middleware layernot Increase
  • A company that wants deposits spread across several banks for FDIC coverage beyond a single institution limitnot Increase
  • A bank replacing a fragile middleware arrangement with a structure where it holds the customer contract and the oversight obligationnot 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.

Treasury Prime

  • A fintech cannot buy Treasury Prime directly since the 2024 pivot, so the sales process starts with finding a sponsor bank willing to take your programme, which adds months and removes most of your negotiating leverage on fees.
  • Commercial terms including minimum deposit balances, reserve requirements and per transaction pricing are set by the bank rather than the platform, so two fintechs on the same software can face materially different economics with no public benchmark.
  • The company cut roughly half its staff in the 2024 pivot, which reduced the teams that supported fintech customers directly and left fintechs relying on their bank for support rather than on the vendor who wrote the software.
  • Bank risk appetite is now the binding constraint, and after the Synapse failure sponsor banks decline programmes in higher risk categories that a middleware provider would once have onboarded, so some business models simply cannot get placed.
  • If your sponsor bank exits the programme or is told by its regulator to reduce fintech exposure, you are migrating your entire deposit base to another institution, and the software being the same at both ends does not make that a small project.

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

Treasury Prime

On request
  • BankOS$undefined/year
    • Sold to sponsor banks, not directly to fintechs
    • Fintech commercial terms are set by the sponsor bank
    • Minimum deposits, reserves and per transaction fees vary by bank

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 Treasury Prime if

  • You need bankos.
  • You work on API, Web.
  • You also want onekey banking.
Treasury Prime review

Questions people ask

Is Increase or Treasury Prime better?
Neither clearly leads. Increase starts at On request and Treasury Prime at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Increase or Treasury Prime?
Increase starts at On request and Treasury Prime at On request.
Does Increase or Treasury Prime 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 Treasury Prime is typically brought in for.
What can Increase do that Treasury Prime cannot?
Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Domestic wires, Real-time payments, Bank accounts. Treasury Prime covers BankOS, OneKey Banking, Deposit accounts, Payments.

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.

Treasury Prime: Can a fintech buy Treasury Prime directly?

No. Since the 2024 pivot it sells to banks. A fintech contracts with a sponsor bank running BankOS, and the bank sets the terms.

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.

Treasury Prime: Why did it change model?

Regulatory pressure on the tri-party middleware structure, sharpened by the Synapse failure. Examiners want the bank holding the customer contract and the oversight obligation, which is what bank-direct means.

Increase: Is it international?

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

Treasury Prime: What is OneKey Banking?

A way of spreading deposits across several banks in the network, used for FDIC coverage above a single institution limit and for resilience if one bank exits.

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.

Treasury Prime: Is pricing published?

No, at neither the bank nor the fintech level. Fintech economics are set by the sponsor bank, so expect wide variation.

Share

Related pages

More on Increase

More on Treasury Prime

Keep looking

Other head to heads