Design for Multi-Aggregator Optionality
Tony Xiao, founder and CEO of Venice, on the opportunities in financial data aggregation
This is why data aggregation architecture becomes a one way door early. Once a fintech has built its account linking flow, data model, retry logic, and customer onboarding around one provider, adding a second provider means building a routing layer that decides where each institution goes, then cleaning two different data formats into one internal standard. The pain is not just code. If the first provider owns the login session, switching later can force every existing user to reconnect accounts.
-
The upside of multiple aggregators is narrower than it looks. Plaid, Yodlee, MX, and others overlap heavily because many support the same top institutions and share long tail connectivity sources, so two vendors do not double coverage. The real benefit is filling specific gaps, adding redundancy, and improving negotiating leverage.
-
The trade off depends on the product. A money movement app like Venmo mostly needs to verify a bank account and move ACH, so one strong U.S. aggregator can be enough. A personal finance or wealth app needs broader coverage across banks, brokerages, crypto, and niche institutions, so multiplexing matters much more.
-
This extra integration work is substantial in practice. Recent fintechs using multiple providers often spend 20% to 30% of engineering time on customizations, multiplexers, and retries instead of shipping product features. That burden is exactly what companies like Venice are built to abstract away.
The market is heading toward a split where basic bank connectivity becomes more standardized, while control over routing, normalization, and enrichment becomes the real product. Fintechs that design for multi aggregator optionality from day one will have better coverage, lower switching costs, and more leverage as open banking and specialized data providers keep expanding.