Softwr

APIs · head to head

Swan vs Toqio

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
Toqio logo

Toqio

APIs

No code platform for building embedded finance products on your own providers

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.; Toqio toqio holds no licence and provides no sponsor bank, so you must find, contract and manage regulated providers yourself, which is the slowest part of any embedded finance launch.
  • They diverge on capability: Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Toqio covers No code product builder.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Swan and Toqio actually diverge.

Attributes where Swan and Toqio differ
AttributeSwanToqio
PlatformsWeb, APIWeb, iOS, Android, 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 Toqio

  • No code product builder
  • Provider orchestration
  • Account and card modules
  • Embedded financing
  • Back office tooling
  • Multi entity and multi brand
  • White label mobile apps
  • Marketplace of providers

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

Toqio

  • A manufacturer offering branded working capital finance to its dealer networknot Swan
  • A B2B marketplace launching accounts and cards for its sellers without becoming regulated itselfnot Swan
  • A corporate that wants to switch card issuer without rebuilding its customer facing productnot Swan
  • A group launching the same embedded finance product across several markets with different local providersnot 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.

Toqio

  • Toqio holds no licence and provides no sponsor bank, so you must find, contract and manage regulated providers yourself, which is the slowest part of any embedded finance launch.
  • Because it orchestrates rather than provides, the customer experience is only as good as the underlying bank or issuer, and Toqio cannot fix a partner's settlement delays or outages.
  • Pricing is quoted with no public rate card, so comparing it against building in house or against a bundled banking as a service provider requires a full sales process.
  • With around EUR 30 million raised in total it is a small supplier to underpin a financial product a large corporate expects to run for a decade, which raises real continuity questions in procurement.
  • No code configuration covers standard patterns well but bespoke customer journeys eventually require custom development, at which point the main advantage over building directly on provider APIs narrows.

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

Toqio

On request
  • Toqio platform$undefined/year
    • Quoted per customer, typically setup plus recurring platform fee
    • Regulated provider fees are separate and contracted by you
    • Card interchange and lending economics belong to your provider agreements

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 Toqio if

  • You need no code product builder.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android, API.
  • You also want provider orchestration.
Toqio review

Questions people ask

Is Swan or Toqio better?
Neither clearly leads. Swan starts at On request and Toqio at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Swan or Toqio?
Swan starts at On request and Toqio at On request.
Does Swan or Toqio run on more platforms?
Swan runs on Web, API. Toqio runs on Web, iOS, Android, 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 Toqio is typically brought in for.
What can Swan do that Toqio cannot?
Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Card issuing, SEPA payments, Local account localisation. Toqio covers No code product builder, Provider orchestration, Account and card modules, Embedded financing.

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.

Toqio: Does Toqio provide the banking licence?

No, deliberately. You contract your own bank, issuer or lender, which is why you can replace them without rebuilding the product.

Swan: Is pricing published?

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

Toqio: Who is it aimed at?

Large corporates and B2B ecosystem operators embedding finance for suppliers, dealers or marketplace sellers, not consumer fintech startups.

Swan: Who regulates Swan?

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

Toqio: How much does it cost?

Not published. Expect a setup fee plus a recurring platform fee, with all regulated provider costs on top and separately contracted.

Share

Related pages

More on Swan

More on Toqio

Keep looking

Other head to heads