Softwr

APIs · head to head

Lithic vs Swan

Lithic logo

Lithic

APIs

API-first card issuing platform with direct Visa, Mastercard and Amex network connections

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: Lithic pricing is entirely undisclosed, so a company cannot compare total cost against Marqeta, Galileo or Highnote without a sales conversation.; 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: Lithic covers Direct network connections, Swan covers Embedded business accounts.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Lithic and Swan actually diverge.

Attributes where Lithic and Swan differ
AttributeLithicSwan

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

  • Direct network connections
  • Processor Client mode
  • Lithic Program Management
  • Card lifecycle APIs
  • Sandbox environment
  • Real-time authorization controls

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.

Lithic

  • A fintech wanting direct Visa or Mastercard network access rather than routing through a third-party processornot Swan
  • A company that already holds its own issuing licence and wants API access without full programme managementnot Swan
  • A neobank or expense platform wanting Lithic to manage bank and network relationships end to endnot Swan
  • A product team prototyping a card programme in sandbox before committing to a launchnot Swan

Swan

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

Where each one falls short

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

Lithic

  • Pricing is entirely undisclosed, so a company cannot compare total cost against Marqeta, Galileo or Highnote without a sales conversation.
  • Choosing Processor Client mode still leaves the company responsible for holding its own issuing licence and managing the regulatory relationship, which is a substantial undertaking many teams underestimate.
  • As with any card infrastructure provider, an outage or network issue at Lithic becomes a direct outage for every card programme built on it, and a customer has limited visibility into root cause during an incident.
  • Building a card programme on API infrastructure requires real engineering investment; it is not a plug-and-play product for a non-technical team.
  • Switching card infrastructure providers after launch is a major undertaking involving card reissuance and programme migration, so the initial choice carries lasting lock-in.

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

Lithic

On request
  • Lithic$undefined/year
    • Volume and interchange-based pricing, not published
    • Separate Processor Client and Program Management pricing tracks
    • Custom quote required via sales

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 Lithic if

  • You need direct network connections.
  • You work on Web, API.
  • You also want processor client mode.
Lithic 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 Lithic or Swan better?
Neither clearly leads. Lithic 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, Lithic or Swan?
Lithic starts at On request and Swan at On request.
Does Lithic or Swan run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, API, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is Lithic best used for?
Lithic is most often used for a fintech wanting direct visa or mastercard network access rather than routing through a third-party processor, a company that already holds its own issuing licence and wants api access without full programme management, a neobank or expense platform wanting lithic to manage bank and network relationships end to end, a product team prototyping a card programme in sandbox before committing to a launch. Of those, a fintech wanting direct visa or mastercard network access rather than routing through a third-party processor and a company that already holds its own issuing licence and wants api access without full programme management are not what Swan is typically brought in for.
What can Lithic do that Swan cannot?
Lithic covers Direct network connections, Processor Client mode, Lithic Program Management, Card lifecycle APIs. Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Card issuing, SEPA payments, Local account localisation.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Lithic: Does Lithic publish pricing?

No, pricing is volume-based and requires a sales conversation.

Swan: Which countries does Swan offer local accounts in?

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

Lithic: What is the difference between Processor Client and Program Management?

Processor Client suits companies with their own issuing licence and bank relationships; Program Management is for companies wanting Lithic to coordinate those relationships on their behalf.

Swan: Is pricing published?

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

Lithic: Which networks does it connect to?

Visa, Mastercard and American Express directly.

Swan: Who regulates Swan?

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

Share

Related pages

More on Lithic

More on Swan

Keep looking

Other head to heads