You are a developer with a deadline. Your team needs to pull account data from customers' banks, and someone in a meeting told you the APIs.io catalog has a page for exactly this. You open Open Banking & Account Data, expecting a shortlist you can trust.
The page lists 13 providers. You scan it for the names you already know and notice that Plaid, the one everyone mentions first, isn't there. That seems odd, so you check the catalog itself. 284 providers carry the exact Open Banking tag. Plaid is the highest scorer among them, at 82.7. It has 41 APIs and an agent readiness score of 47.9. And it is missing from the page.
The post you are reading says plainly why: this cut is the catalog's own, and it measures how the page was built more than it measures the market.
Membership on the page comes from matching free-text strings against what providers declared as use cases, such as Open Banking, Account Aggregation and Personal Finance Apps. The page shows 10 declared variants. Plaid's use_cases field is empty, and so are those of most tagged providers. Only 13 of the 284 have one populated. So the page reflects who happened to fill in that field with matching words, not who does open banking.
You look at who else is missing. Qonto scores 77.0 and isn't on the page. Dwolla scores 73.5 and isn't there either. Klarna, at 73.2, and Moneyhub, at 70.3, are also left off. Basiq, Token.io, Barclays and ExchangeRate-API did make it in.
That last one gives you pause. ExchangeRate-API is a currency exchange rates service, and it is named among the page's highest rated. It was admitted because one of its use cases is Personal Finance Apps. The post says that use case describes converting balances for travel and expense tracking, not linking a bank account. It is not what you came here to find.
It isn't alone. Four of the 13 do not carry the Open Banking tag at all. Axway is an API management vendor with an open banking offering, which the post calls more defensible, though its record describes the tooling around open banking and not the account data itself. Temenos Transact and Ally Financial make up the other two of the four.
You wonder whether the list is at least a cleaner, better group. The numbers say the small list reads better, but not for a reason you can lean on. The page's median Kin Score is 54.7, with 30.5 on agents. The 284 tagged providers have a median of 37.5 and 25.5. That is about seventeen points of difference on the Kin Score, and it comes from the way the 13 were picked.
The wider group isn't clean either, and the post says so. Of the 284, 58 are tagged Australia, many also tagged for the Consumer Data Right, and the tag is applied generously. But it does contain the names a developer would expect, including Qonto, Dwolla, Klarna and Revolut, which scores 70.0. Only 9 of the 284 are on the page.
The bottom of the list carries its own warning. UBS, at 11.7, and Ally Financial, at 10.0, are split-basis records with 0.0 on agents. The post says those tell you what the catalog could read from them and little else.
So you change how you use the page. The post's takeaway is direct: do not use it as a market map yet. The fix it names is to admit providers from tags and capabilities as well as use_cases, and to require more than a loosely matching phrase.
Until that happens, you take the post's advice. You start with Plaid and Token.io, and you read the Open Banking tag for the rest. You come away knowing that a short, tidy list can be a measure of how a catalog collected its data, and that the catalog was willing to say so about itself.
Read the original: https://apis.io/2026/11/07/open-banking-use-case-lists-13-providers-while-284-carry-the-tag-and-plaid-is-missing/