Penta vs Swan

For spending abroad FX markup matters, and Penta does better (0% 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 Penta and Swan.

Penta 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 Free Free
Interest on balance 0% 0%
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
Segment B2B B2B
Regions EU/EEA EU/EEA
Licences & safety Banking-as-a-Service (solarisBank) EMI
Penta 3.8/5 · Tier B
Swan 4.4/5 · Tier A

Frequently asked questions

Penta vs Swan: which is better?

For spending abroad FX markup matters, and Penta does better (0% 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 Penta and Swan.

Which is cheaper, Penta or Swan?

On the standard spending profile Penta has the lowest net annual cost: €0 versus €0 for Swan.

Is Penta custodial or self-custody?

Penta is custodial: funds are held by the platform, while Swan is custodial.

Which is better for spending abroad?

For foreign-currency spending Penta wins, with the lowest FX markup: 0%.