Kontist vs Swan
For spending abroad FX markup matters, and Kontist does better (1.75% vs 2%). In our editorial rating Swan leads (4.4 vs 3.8). The choice depends on your real spending profile: redo the math with your volumes before picking between Kontist and Swan.
| Kontist | Swan | |
|---|---|---|
| Tier | B | A |
| Rating | ★ 3.8 | ★ 4.4 |
| Estimated net annual cost | €0 | €0 |
| Account fee | Free | Free |
| IBAN | dedicato · DE | dedicato · FR, DE, NL, ES, BE, IT |
| Multi-currency | No (single currency) | No (single currency) |
| Outbound transfers to third-party IBANs | Yes | No |
| Utility direct billing | Yes | No |
| SEPA direct debit (SDD) | Yes | No |
| On-chain crypto withdrawal | No | No |
| SEPA transfer | €0 | Free |
| ATM withdrawal | not declared | not declared |
| Fund custody | Custodial (platform holds funds) | Custodial (platform holds funds) |
| KYC | Full | Full |
| Supported countries | EEA · 1+ countries | EEA · 30+ countries |
| Regulator | BaFin | ACPR |
| OAM Italy registration | No | No |
| Interest on balance | — | 0% |
| Segment | — | B2B |
| Regions | EU/EEA | EU/EEA |
| Licences & safety | Banking partner (Solaris Bank) | EMI |
Frequently asked questions
Kontist vs Swan: which is better?
For spending abroad FX markup matters, and Kontist does better (1.75% vs 2%). In our editorial rating Swan leads (4.4 vs 3.8). The choice depends on your real spending profile: redo the math with your volumes before picking between Kontist and Swan.
Which is cheaper, Kontist or Swan?
On the standard spending profile Kontist has the lowest net annual cost: €0 versus €0 for Swan.
Is Kontist custodial or self-custody?
Kontist is custodial: funds are held by the platform, while Swan is custodial.
Which is better for spending abroad?
For foreign-currency spending Kontist wins, with the lowest FX markup: 1.75%.