Invoice-driven banking for LatAm SMBs

This is the core product split between Kapital and U.S. startup neobanks. Mercury starts with the bank account and adds finance tools around it, while Kapital uses the bank account as the screen where an SMB already lives, then pulls in invoices, payables, receivables, and lending so the owner can see cash in and cash out in one place and act on it immediately.

• In practice, visibility means the customer is not just looking at balances and card spend. They can open a payments module, select an invoice already in the system, send the vendor payment, see who owes them money, and collect through a payment link, all inside the banking workflow.
  1 sacra 4 sacra
• Kapital can do this because Mexico and much of LatAm use mandatory electronic invoicing, which creates a machine readable record of business transactions. In the U.S., companies more often stitch together bank accounts, ERPs, bill pay, and expense tools, which is why Mercury connects into systems of record instead of being the system of record.
  1 sacra 3 sacra 4 sacra
• That product difference changes the business model. Kapital has historically monetized both lending and SaaS, with revenue split roughly 60% lending and 40% tech in the interview period, while Mercury is primarily deposit yield driven, earning most of its revenue from interest sharing on a large deposit base and only a smaller share from SaaS and interchange.
  1 sacra 2 sacra 3 sacra

The next step is deeper automation. As Kapital keeps adding payroll, treasury, stablecoins, and AI reporting on top of this invoice level data layer, it moves further from being a business bank and closer to being the operating system for LatAm SMB finance, which should increase product attach, retention, and share of payment volume over time.