APIs · head to head
Increase vs Zimpler
Increase
APIs
Direct banking API for ACH, wires, real-time payments, accounts and cards
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Zimpler
APIs
Nordic and Brazilian account-to-account payments for regulated high-risk sectors
- 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.; Zimpler pricing is not published and is set by industry and risk profile, so smaller merchants cannot benchmark a quote and often discover they are paying well above a general-purpose provider.
- They diverge on capability: Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Zimpler covers Bank payments.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Increase and Zimpler 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 Zimpler
- Bank payments
- BankID identity
- Payouts
- Recurring payments
- Risk screening
- Brazil coverage
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 Zimpler
- A marketplace that must hold seller balances in ledgered accounts with real account and routing numbersnot Zimpler
- A fintech that wants FedNow and RTP payouts so recipients are paid outside banking hoursnot Zimpler
- An engineering team that needs the underlying return codes and settlement timing visible in order to build correct reconciliation and retry logicnot Zimpler
Zimpler
- A Swedish gambling operator needing deposit and verified identity in a single customer flownot Increase
- A Nordic merchant wanting instant bank payouts rather than card refundsnot Increase
- A trading platform where confirming account ownership before funding is a regulatory requirementnot Increase
- A European operator expanding into Brazil and wanting one provider across both marketsnot 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.
Zimpler
- Pricing is not published and is set by industry and risk profile, so smaller merchants cannot benchmark a quote and often discover they are paying well above a general-purpose provider.
- As a payment facilitator carrying merchant risk, it declines or offboards merchants on risk grounds, which makes it a dependency you cannot assume will persist.
- Its strength is concentrated in the Nordics, and coverage in southern and eastern Europe is thinner than pan-European account-to-account specialists.
- Revenue concentration in iGaming ties the provider to a sector under constant regulatory change, so licence changes in one market affect the supplier as well as the merchant.
- Bank transfers have no chargeback protection, so disputes are handled commercially and consumers used to card protections may resist the payment method.
Pricing, plan by plan
Increase
On request- Increase Platform$undefined/month
- Monthly fee quoted by use case and not published
- Next-day ACH origination listed at 0.50 US dollars per transaction
- Same-day ACH origination listed at 2.00 per transaction
Zimpler
On request- Zimpler payments$undefined/year
- Per-transaction pricing quoted by industry, risk and volume
- Separate pricing for payouts and identity verification
- Merchant underwriting required, with sector restrictions
Which should you pick?
Choose Increase if
- You need ach origination and receipt.
- You work on API, Web.
- You also want domestic wires.
Choose Zimpler if
- You need bank payments.
- You work on Web, REST API.
- You also want bankid identity.
Questions people ask
- Is Increase or Zimpler better?
- Neither clearly leads. Increase starts at On request and Zimpler at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
- Which is cheaper, Increase or Zimpler?
- Increase starts at On request and Zimpler at On request.
- Does Increase or Zimpler run on more platforms?
- Increase runs on API, Web. Zimpler runs on Web, REST 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 Zimpler is typically brought in for.
- What can Increase do that Zimpler cannot?
- Increase covers ACH origination and receipt, Domestic wires, Real-time payments, Bank accounts. Zimpler covers Bank payments, BankID identity, Payouts, Recurring 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.
Zimpler: Which markets does Zimpler cover?
Sweden and the Nordics primarily, plus the wider EU and Brazil. It is strongest where national electronic identity schemes exist.
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.
Zimpler: Does it handle identity verification?
Yes. In the Nordics it captures BankID identity alongside the payment, which removes a separate verification step.
Increase: Is it international?
No. Increase covers United States rails only, so cross border payouts require a second provider.
Zimpler: Is pricing published?
No. It is quoted per merchant based on sector, risk and volume, and merchants must pass underwriting first.
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 Trustly
- Increase vs Token.io
- Increase vs Neonomics
- Increase vs Brite Payments
- Increase vs Tink
- Increase vs Yapily
- Increase vs Fintecture
- Increase vs Paw
- Zimpler vs Dwolla
- Zimpler vs Astra
- Zimpler vs Unit
- Zimpler vs Treasury Prime
- Zimpler vs Sila
- Zimpler vs Moov
- Zimpler vs Column
- Zimpler vs Lithic
- Zimpler vs Volt
- Zimpler vs Swan
- Zimpler vs TrueLayer
- Zimpler vs Griffin
- Zimpler vs KeystoneJS
- Zimpler vs Kong
- Zimpler vs Liveblocks
- Zimpler vs Moesif
- Zimpler vs Ozone API
- Zimpler vs Parse Server
- Zimpler vs Trustly
- Zimpler vs Token.io
- Zimpler vs Neonomics
- Zimpler vs Brite Payments
- Zimpler vs Tink
- Zimpler vs Yapily
- Zimpler vs Fintecture
- Zimpler vs Paw