APIs · head to head
Swan vs Treasury Prime
Swan
APIs
European banking-as-a-service platform for embedding accounts, cards and payments into other products
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
Treasury Prime
APIs
Banking as a service platform sold to sponsor banks rather than to fintechs
- From
- On request
- Rated
- -
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.; 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: Swan covers Embedded business accounts, Treasury Prime covers BankOS.
- Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.
Where they differ
Only the attributes on which Swan and Treasury Prime actually diverge.
| Attribute | Swan | Treasury Prime |
|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Web, API | API, Web |
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
- SEPA payments
- Local account localisation
- ACPR regulation
- Usage-based pricing
Only in Treasury Prime
- BankOS
- OneKey Banking
- Deposit accounts
- Payments
- Bank oversight tooling
- Ledger and reconciliation
- Programme onboarding
Both cover
- Card issuing
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 Treasury Prime
- A marketplace wanting to issue cards to sellers or partners without becoming a licensed banknot Treasury Prime
- A company wanting SEPA payment initiation embedded directly into its own productnot Treasury Prime
- A European fintech wanting to avoid a six-figure setup fee and long lock-in typical of legacy banking-as-a-service dealsnot 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 Swan
- A fintech that has already chosen its sponsor bank and needs API access to that bank rather than to a middleware layernot Swan
- A company that wants deposits spread across several banks for FDIC coverage beyond a single institution limitnot Swan
- A bank replacing a fragile middleware arrangement with a structure where it holds the customer contract and the oversight obligationnot 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.
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
Swan
On request- Swan$undefined/month
- Usage-based pricing, no published rate card
- No long-term contract or large setup fee required
- Custom quote based on current, not forecast, usage
Treasury Prime
On request- BankOS$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 Swan if
- You need embedded business accounts.
- You work on Web, API.
- You also want sepa payments.
Choose Treasury Prime if
- You need bankos.
- You work on API, Web.
- You also want onekey banking.
Questions people ask
- Is Swan or Treasury Prime better?
- Neither clearly leads. Swan 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, Swan or Treasury Prime?
- Swan starts at On request and Treasury Prime at On request.
- Does Swan or Treasury Prime run on more platforms?
- Swan runs on Web, API. Treasury Prime runs on API, Web.
- 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 Treasury Prime is typically brought in for.
- What can Swan do that Treasury Prime cannot?
- Swan covers Embedded business accounts, SEPA payments, Local account localisation, ACPR regulation. Treasury Prime covers BankOS, OneKey Banking, Deposit accounts, Payments. Both handle Card issuing.
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.
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.
Swan: Is pricing published?
No, Swan describes a usage-based, no-large-setup-fee philosophy but requires a quote for actual numbers.
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.
Swan: Who regulates Swan?
France's ACPR (Autorite de Controle Prudentiel et de Resolution), as a licensed e-money institution.
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.
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.
Related pages
More on Treasury Prime
Other head to heads
- Swan vs Vodeno
- Swan vs Trustly
- Swan vs Yapily
- Swan vs Unit
- Swan vs Griffin
- Swan vs Weavr
- Swan vs Fintech Farm
- Swan vs Lithic
- Swan vs Solaris
- Swan vs Synctera
- Swan vs Astra
- Swan vs Treblle
- Swan vs Tribe Payments
- Swan vs Tuum
- Swan vs Increase
- Swan vs Thredd
- Swan vs Mambu
- Swan vs Liveblocks
- Swan vs Moesif
- Swan vs Ozone API
- Swan vs Parse Server
- Swan vs Paw
- Swan vs Paymentology
- Treasury Prime vs Vodeno
- Treasury Prime vs Trustly
- Treasury Prime vs Yapily
- Treasury Prime vs Unit
- Treasury Prime vs Griffin
- Treasury Prime vs Weavr
- Treasury Prime vs Fintech Farm
- Treasury Prime vs Lithic
- Treasury Prime vs Solaris
- Treasury Prime vs Synctera
- Treasury Prime vs Astra
- Treasury Prime vs Treblle
- Treasury Prime vs Tribe Payments
- Treasury Prime vs Tuum
- Treasury Prime vs Increase
- Treasury Prime vs Thredd
- Treasury Prime vs Mambu
- Treasury Prime vs Liveblocks
- Treasury Prime vs Moesif
- Treasury Prime vs Ozone API
- Treasury Prime vs Parse Server
- Treasury Prime vs Paw
- Treasury Prime vs Paymentology