Column Avoids Middleware Revenue Split

Owning the charter, ledger, payment rails, and compliance stack lets Column keep revenue that a typical BaaS chain would divide between a fintech middleware layer and a sponsor bank. In practice that means one integration for clients, direct access to ACH, Fedwire, FedNow, cards, and deposit accounts, and a revenue mix that includes transaction fees, interchange share, and net interest income without paying a separate platform toll.

• A middleware model usually adds at least one extra economic claimant between the fintech and the bank. Synctera described why that layer exists, banks often lack direct visibility into FBO accounts and need tooling to supervise programs. Column internalizes that tooling instead of buying it from an outside platform.
  1 sacra 3 sacra
• The financial effect shows up in mix and margins. Column was estimated at $55M of 2024 revenue, split roughly $28M interest income and $27M non interest income. That non interest bucket includes usage fees and interchange share that Column can retain more fully because it is both the bank and the software layer.
  1 sacra
• The best comparison is Lead Bank, another chartered API bank. Lead also avoids the classic revenue split, but its book is more lending heavy, with about 68% of 2024 revenue from interest. Column is more neobank infrastructure driven, anchored by Brex and Mercury, with a more balanced fee and interest mix.
  2 sacra 4 sacra

The next step is deeper bundling. Once a fintech already uses Column for accounts, payments, cards, and compliance, Column can add lending, treasury, and other bank products into the same relationship. That makes the integrated model stronger over time, because every added product raises revenue per client without adding another party to pay.