INOPAY
COMPARISON

Why Inopay and not Plaid

Other infrastructures are designed for their home market. Inopay is designed for African regional exchanges, their licensed SGIs and their regulators.

Functional comparison

Criteria considered by technical and compliance teams.

CriterionInopayMono.coBelvoPlaidDaba Finance
Core focus
Brokerage as a service across African exchanges
Open banking West Africa and Nigeria
Open banking Latin America
Open banking North America and Europe
B2C investing app Africa
Exchanges covered
BRVM, BVMAC, GSE
None
None
NYSE, NASDAQ via partners
BRVM, NSE, GSE in B2C
Regulators addressed
AMF-UMOA, COSUMAF, SEC Ghana
BCEAO, CBN
CNBV, BCRA, CMF
FINRA, FCA
AMF-UMOA (B2C)
Signed portable KYC
Yes — Ed25519, offline-verifiable
No
No
No
Internal, not portable
Model
B2B2C — operator / bank / SGI partners
B2B — bank-account aggregation
B2B — bank-account aggregation
B2B — bank-account aggregation
B2C — end-investor app
Public audit chain
Yes — hash logs anchored Merkle, /audit page
Not disclosed
Not disclosed
Internal SOC2 audits
Not disclosed
Native SDKs
iOS, Android, Web, Node, Python
Web, Node, Python, mobile beta
Web, Node, Python, Java
Web, iOS, Android, Node, Python, Java, Go
App only

Table built on public sources April 2026. Mono.co and Belvo do not offer brokerage as a service at the time of writing. Plaid does not operate in Sub-Saharan Africa. Daba Finance is a B2C competitor, not B2B infrastructure.

Evaluating several options?

On request we provide a CTO memo comparing Inopay with your shortlist, with detailed technical, regulatory and economic criteria.