striga-embedded-finance
arrow-left Back to blogs

How does Striga compare to Swan?

Table of Contents

There are multiple types of financial institutions and banking service providers out there. A group of them focus not on investments, but on providing infrastructure. Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) and Crypto-banking-as-a-Service (Crypto-BaaS) —like Striga’s platform— fall within that category, and though they sound quite similar, they are in fact quite different.

What is BaaS?

A BaaS company is one that offers banking infrastructure for other companies to integrate into their own products, so they can offer banking features. Traditionally, they tend to hold Electronic Money Institution Licenses and connect directly to BIN Sponsors.

Examples of them are Contis, Railsbank, and Modulr, though there are many others.

What is Crypto-BaaS?

Crypto banking-as-a-service refers to companies that provide banking infrastructure —usually both crypto & fiat— for other companies to integrate into their own products. Crypto-BaaS usually offer features regarding:

  1. Crypto wallets
  2. Crypto exchanges
  3. vIBAN accounts for individual users
  4. Virtual and Physical Cards
  5. KYC & AML controls

Examples of them are Striga, Solid, and Synapse

Where do BaaS and Crypto BaaS overlap?

BaaS and Crypto-BaaS overlap in card issuing and vIBAN account creation. Basically, as the name implies, Crypto functionalities (wallet, exchange, crypto KYC/AML) are what makes Crypto-BaaS special

Striga Vs. Swan

Time to Market

Swan: The integration to the Swan platform usually takes anywhere between 3 and 8 months, though it can vary a bit depending on the provider and the features to be implemented.

Striga takes between 6 weeks and 3 months to fully deploy a product, from the moment you make the decision, through the integrations, until going live.

Verdict: Striga is the faster option overall.

Striga
Swan

Time to Market

1.5 – 3 months

3 – 8 months

Striga Vs. Swan:

Financials

Swan: The BaaS platform of Swan has been known to charge between EUR 0  as an upfront cost for the medium plan and they provide a customized solutions plan for enterprises which the costs are not publicly available, though it may vary depending on each particular case.

Striga: The Crypto-BaaS platform of Striga charges EUR 5,000 as an upfront/integration cost, plus EUR 3,000 monthly.

Verdict: Striga is, by a long shot, the cheaper option, though BaaS may get cheaper as the volume of transactions scales.

Financials
Striga
Swan

Upfront Cost (EUR)

5,000

0 – Custom Implementation

Monthly Minimum / Subscription Fee (EUR)

3,000

3,000

Striga Vs. Swan:

Services Offered

Swan and Striga offer a relatively similar service portfolio. Except for crypto wallets and exchange functionalities —which only Striga offers— they both include the following:

  1. White label infrastructure
  2. Individual vIBAN accounts
  3. Physical and Virtual Card Issuing
  4. Apple Pay & Google Pay support (Tokenization)
  5. Product lifecycle management via a dashboard

 

Verdict: In terms of services, on the Fiat side, both options are good. If crypto functionalities are desired, Striga is the only way to go.

Services
Striga
Swan

White Label Infrastructure 

Yes

Yes

Individual vIBAN accounts

Yes

Yes

Physical and Virtual Card Issuing

Yes

Yes

Apple Pay & Google Pay support (Tokenization)

Yes

Yes

Product lifecycle management via a dashboard

Yes

Yes

Striga Vs. Swan:

Technical Setup

Besides the documentation being high-quality, the 4 following elements make the technical setup friendlier:

  1. Publicly available sandbox: Striga and Swan offer both a publicly available sandbox
  2. The number of partners required: Assuming you start from scratch, to go live with a full crypto banking platform, you need Swan and 3 other partnerships (Wallet provider, Exchange connectivity, and KYC/AML partner). Striga, on the other hand, is already connected with all of the above, so you only need the connection to Striga.
  3. Interactive setup guide: Though all companies have setup guides, they tend to be static. Striga is the only one with a guide that actually connects to its servers interactively, so clients can test and learn in real-time each step of the guide.
  4. Public API Documentation: Striga has publicly available documentation, as does Swan also

 

Verdict: Connecting to Striga requires less effort given the extensive availability of resources it provides, as well as the simplicity of connecting to only one partner, as opposed to 3 for Swan

Technical Setup
Striga
Swan

Publicly Available Sandbox

Yes

Yes

Number of Partners Required to Go Live

1

3

Interactive Setup Guide

Yes

No

Public API Documentation

Yes

Yes

Striga Vs. Swan:

Regulation & Compliance

So, integrations were easy to connect, the app has all the features your user’s love, and it is actually making you money due to great financials. The only thing that could put a stop to it is making a regulatory mistake and getting shut down. There are 3 things to know if you want to stay in business: Know your customer (KYC), Anti-money laundering (AML), and Licenses.

  1. On KYC: Swan, usually,does not require their sponsored clients to take and handle their own KYC operations. Outsourcing it or building it is generally necessary. Striga doesn’t allow for KYC outsourcing, it handles it on behalf of the client.
  2. On AML: Swan, usually, does not require their sponsored clients to take and handle their own AML operations. Outsourcing it or building it is generally necessary. Striga doesn’t allow for AML outsourcing, it handles it on behalf of the client.
  3. On Licenses: Striga does not require its clients to hold virtual asset licenses or commercial registrations. Swan, on the other hand, does. It usually requires either a detailed registration with them or a digital asset-related license.

Verdict: Swan is more flexible in terms of oversight, but requires more responsibility on the clients’ part too. Overall, Swan is better in terms of regulatory flexibility if you have the time, money, and resources to get the licenses and build the KYC/AML operation. Striga is better if you don’t have them, and just want to focus on building your product.

Regulation & Compliance
Striga
Swan

Outsourceable KYC

No

No

Outsourceable AML

No

No

Licenses or Commercial Registrations NOT Required

Yes

Yes

Verdict

Is Striga better than Swan?

It really depends on what you are looking for.

If what you want is a partner with a fiat-only banking focus, and extensive resources to expend, then Swan may make sense. Usually, this makes more sense if you’re already a big company because Swan can get cheap at a high volume transactional level.

If, on the other hand, you are interested in building both fiat and crypto infrastructure, and would prefer to spend fewer resources on the project, then Striga is the solution for you. Striga is ideal for growing companies that want a solution that leaves them space to breathe and expand their operations.

Striga Crypto-native Banking as a Service:

Your path to building and launching financial products

Join the financial businesses that use Striga’s cloud platform to delight their customers and launch their own products without the complexities that come when dealing with core banking solutions’ relationships, licensing, compliance and payments methods.

arrow-icon-size3 Start building