AI vendors for financial services that publish their pricing
Which AI vendors for financial services publish their pricing? 9 of the 549 vendors in the AI FinTech Index do, at a standard a buyer can price against without a sales call. Here they are by name, with the 476 that disclose nothing beside them.
Commercial Transparency is graded on every vendor in the index. Figures recomputed 2026-08-30 from 549 graded vendors.
The 9 that publish rates
An A on Commercial Transparency means published per unit rates a buyer can price against before any conversation. It is a grade on what a buyer can establish, not on whether the price is good. An expensive vendor with a rate card grades above a cheap one behind a demo form, and that is deliberate.
The 64 that publish structure without rates
A B means a published plan ladder, billing dimensions, or a stated commitment such as no fees, so a buyer can size the cost before making contact. These are the vendors where a buyer can work out what they would be charged for without being told how much, which is enough to compare two quotes on the same unit and not enough to budget from.
Accelex, Adclear, Akur8, AlternativeSoft, AnChain.AI, Automwrite, AviaryAI, Binocs, Boosted.ai, Callsign, Chainalysis, ClearSale, Colektia, ComplyAdvantage, Crystal Intelligence, FinBox, Fincom, FinTech Studios, Forter, Fraudio, FundCount, Glia, Global Ledger, Gradient Labs, Harmoney, InfrasAI, Intensel, InvestSuite, Kompato AI, Korint, LeapXpert, Lendflow, Linkurious, MirrorWeb, Moody's Analytics, Moveo AI, Nammu21, Nitrogen, NoFraud, Obin AI, Ondato, Optasia, Pagaya, Proof, Recordsure, Reflexivity, Riskified, SecureLend, SEON, Signifyd, Signzy, Traduality, Traive, Transparently.AI, Trusting Social, Underwrite.ai, Upstart, UPTIQ, Vector ML Analytics, Verisk, Vodex, WealthAi, YCharts, Zeplyn.
By category
Vendors are counted in every lane they serve, by primary or secondary assignment, so the lane totals sum higher than the 549 vendors in the index. The spread is narrow and low. Credit Decisioning & Underwriting, Customer & Banking Agents and Lending & Banking Operations have no vendor publishing rates at all.
Questions buyers ask
Which AI vendors for financial services publish their pricing?
9 of the 549 vendors in the AI FinTech Index publish rates a buyer can price against before any sales conversation: ComplyCube, Fingerprint, FP Alpha, iDenfy, Identomat, Marloo, RavenPack, Sumsub, Swallow. That is 2 percent of the index. A further 64 publish a plan ladder or billing dimensions without full rates, bringing the share with anything checkable to 13 percent. The remaining 476 vendors publish no price and run engagement through a demo form. Every name on this page links to a profile carrying the full pricing research record and its verification date.
Does RavenPack publish pricing?
Yes. RavenPack is one of only 9 vendors in the AI FinTech Index carrying an A on Commercial Transparency, meaning published rates a buyer can price against before any conversation. In an index where 87 percent of vendors route every commercial question through a demo form, that is unusual enough to be worth saying plainly. The grade covers whether the pricing is establishable, not whether it is cheap: the index takes no view on the number itself.
What is the total cost of ownership for Backbase?
The index cannot tell you, and neither can anyone else outside a procurement process. Backbase carries a C on Commercial Transparency, which on this index means no price is published and engagement runs through a demo form. That is the norm rather than an outlier: 476 of 549 vendors here are graded the same way. What a buyer can establish before making contact is the shape of the commitment rather than the figure: which modules are separately licensed, whether the unit is a seat or a transaction or an institution, what implementation is scoped as, and what the renewal basis is. Those four questions are answerable in a first call and are worth asking in it, because in this segment the licence is rarely the largest line in the first year. The index records what each vendor discloses publicly and does not estimate negotiated figures.
Why do so few AI fintech vendors publish pricing?
Because in this market the list price is rarely the bill. Deals are shaped by institution size, transaction or asset volume, module selection, core integration scope and a multi year commitment, and a vendor publishing a single per seat figure would be publishing the least informative part of its own pricing. Holding the number back also lets a vendor price to the institution rather than to the market, which matters more when the buyer is a bank than when it is a team of five. The index takes no position on whether that is reasonable. It records the choice, and the record is that 87 percent of vendors serving financial institutions disclose nothing about cost before a call.
Which categories of AI fintech vendor publish pricing most and least?
Fraud Detection & Transaction Risk is the most open lane in the index at 3 percent, and even that is 5 vendors out of 143. Credit Decisioning & Underwriting, Customer & Banking Agents and Lending & Banking Operations have no vendor at all publishing rates a buyer could price against. The pattern is the familiar one: lanes with products that can be bought by a team on a card publish something, and lanes sold to an institution on an annual contract negotiated per deal publish nothing. The further the product sits from a credit card, the more likely its price is a conversation.
How is pricing transparency graded in the AI FinTech Index?
On completeness of disclosure, never on the price itself. A means published per unit rates a buyer can price against before any conversation. B means a published plan ladder, billing dimensions, or a stated commitment such as no fees, so a buyer can size the cost before making contact. C means no price is published and engagement runs through a demo form, which is the norm in this index. D means nothing a buyer can establish before a sales conversation, or a published pricing claim contradicted by evidence. An expensive vendor with a published rate card grades above a cheap one behind a demo form, which is the intended result. Every grade carries a source basis and a verification date: 514 rest on the vendor's own published material and 33 on third party estimates where the vendor publishes nothing. No vendor currently carries a D, because that band is reserved for a published pricing claim contradicted by evidence rather than for silence.
Commercial Transparency is one of fifteen. The rest cover model risk, governance, liability, integration and deployment.
The seven dimension review framework, with what the market actually discloses on each.
Put a shortlist side by side across the same axes, including this one, before the call.