Softwr

APIs · head to head

Swan vs Temenos Transact

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
Temenos Transact logo

Temenos Transact

APIs

Established core banking system used by banks in over a hundred countries

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: 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.; Temenos Transact the codebase originates in the 1990s, so banks on older releases face major upgrade programmes to reach current versions, and many defer them for years.
  • They diverge on capability: Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Temenos Transact covers Country model banks.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Swan and Temenos Transact actually diverge.

Attributes where Swan and Temenos Transact differ
AttributeSwanTemenos Transact
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, Linux, Windows, REST 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 Swan

  • Embedded business accounts
  • Card issuing
  • SEPA payments
  • Local account localisation
  • ACPR regulation
  • Usage-based pricing

Only in Temenos Transact

  • Country model banks
  • Multi-product core
  • Payments processing
  • API layer
  • Cloud deployment
  • Accounting engine

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Swan

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

Temenos Transact

  • A bank in an emerging market needing local regulatory compliance without building it from scratchnot Swan
  • An institution running Islamic banking products alongside conventional ones on one corenot Swan
  • A bank that needs a large pool of experienced implementation consultants to de-risk a migrationnot Swan
  • A group standardising subsidiaries in several countries onto one core banking systemnot Swan

Where each one falls short

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

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.

Temenos Transact

  • The codebase originates in the 1990s, so banks on older releases face major upgrade programmes to reach current versions, and many defer them for years.
  • Total cost is dominated by implementation partner fees rather than licence, and those programmes routinely overrun their original estimates.
  • Product changes that cloud-native cores treat as configuration can require development work and a release cycle, which slows time to market for new products.
  • Heavy customisation is common and it makes every subsequent upgrade harder, creating a compounding cost that banks feel a decade after go-live.
  • Temenos has repeatedly restructured its product line and naming, so buyers must check carefully which components a proposal actually includes and which are separately licensed.

Pricing, plan by plan

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

Temenos Transact

On request
  • Temenos Transact$undefined/year
    • Perpetual or subscription licence scaled by assets, accounts or users
    • Annual maintenance typically a percentage of licence value
    • Implementation delivered by partners and charged separately

Which should you pick?

Choose Swan if

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

Choose Temenos Transact if

  • You need country model banks.
  • You work on Web, Linux, Windows, REST API.
  • You also want multi-product core.
Temenos Transact review

Questions people ask

Is Swan or Temenos Transact better?
Neither clearly leads. Swan starts at On request and Temenos Transact at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Swan or Temenos Transact?
Swan starts at On request and Temenos Transact at On request.
Does Swan or Temenos Transact run on more platforms?
Swan runs on Web, API. Temenos Transact runs on Web, Linux, Windows, REST API.
What is Swan best used for?
Swan is most often used for a vertical saas platform wanting to embed business bank accounts under its own brand, a marketplace wanting to issue cards to sellers or partners without becoming a licensed bank, a company wanting sepa payment initiation embedded directly into its own product, a european fintech wanting to avoid a six-figure setup fee and long lock-in typical of legacy banking-as-a-service deals. Of those, a vertical saas platform wanting to embed business bank accounts under its own brand and a marketplace wanting to issue cards to sellers or partners without becoming a licensed bank are not what Temenos Transact is typically brought in for.
What can Swan do that Temenos Transact cannot?
Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Card issuing, SEPA payments, Local account localisation. Temenos Transact covers Country model banks, Multi-product core, Payments processing, API layer.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Swan: Which countries does Swan offer local accounts in?

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

Temenos Transact: Is Transact the same as T24?

Yes. T24 was renamed Temenos Transact; older installations and much of the consultant population still use the T24 name.

Swan: Is pricing published?

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

Temenos Transact: Can it run in the cloud?

Yes, it is offered on public cloud, though many existing installations remain on-premises and moving them is a project.

Swan: Who regulates Swan?

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

Temenos Transact: What drives the cost?

Licence scaled by size, annual maintenance as a percentage of licence, and implementation partner fees that usually exceed the software cost.

Share

Related pages

More on Swan

More on Temenos Transact

Keep looking

Other head to heads