The relationship between banks and fintech startups has undergone a fundamental shift. A decade ago, the narrative was one of disruption, with fintech companiesThe relationship between banks and fintech startups has undergone a fundamental shift. A decade ago, the narrative was one of disruption, with fintech companies

Why 75% of Banks Now Collaborate With Fintech Startups

2026/03/24 07:28
6 min read
For feedback or concerns regarding this content, please contact us at crypto.news@mexc.com

The relationship between banks and fintech startups has undergone a fundamental shift. A decade ago, the narrative was one of disruption, with fintech companies positioning themselves as replacements for traditional banking. Today, roughly 75% of banks worldwide actively collaborate with fintech startups, according to research from KPMG and the World Economic Forum. The antagonistic dynamic has given way to a symbiotic relationship where both sides benefit.

This shift did not happen by accident. Banks discovered that building technology in-house was expensive, slow, and often produced inferior results compared to partnering with specialised fintech companies. Fintech startups learned that scaling financial services requires access to banking infrastructure, regulatory licences, and established customer trust that takes decades to build. Collaboration became the pragmatic choice for both sides.

Why 75% of Banks Now Collaborate With Fintech Startups

Why Banks Turned to Fintech Partnerships

The primary driver of bank-fintech collaboration is speed. Banks operate on technology cycles measured in years. A major core banking upgrade might take three to five years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Fintech partnerships allow banks to deploy new capabilities in months rather than years. A bank that wants to offer real-time payments, digital onboarding, or AI-powered customer service can partner with a fintech provider rather than building from scratch.

Cost pressure is the second major factor. Traditional banks spend between 15% and 25% of their revenue on technology, according to Gartner. Despite these enormous budgets, much of the spending goes toward maintaining legacy systems rather than building new capabilities. Fintech partnerships allow banks to redirect technology investment toward innovation rather than maintenance. The fintech company handles the specialised development, and the bank integrates the solution into its existing infrastructure.

Customer expectations are the third driver. Bank customers, particularly younger demographics, expect digital experiences that match what they receive from consumer technology companies. Banks that cannot deliver seamless mobile banking, instant payments, and personalised financial insights risk losing customers to digital-first competitors. Fintech partnerships enable banks to meet these expectations without building every capability internally.

What Collaboration Looks Like in Practice

Bank-fintech collaboration takes many forms. The simplest is vendor relationships, where banks purchase fintech products or services. A bank might use a fintech company’s fraud detection system, digital onboarding platform, or payment processing engine. These relationships are transactional and focused on specific capabilities.

Strategic partnerships go deeper. A bank and a fintech company might co-develop a product, share data, or jointly serve a customer segment. For example, Goldman Sachs partnered with Apple to launch the Apple Card, combining Goldman’s banking licence and credit capabilities with Apple’s consumer technology platform. Similar partnerships exist between banks and fintech companies across payments, lending, and wealth management.

Investment relationships represent another form of collaboration. Many large banks operate venture capital arms that invest in fintech startups. Citi Ventures, HSBC’s innovation team, and Barclays’ accelerator programme all provide funding, mentorship, and potential integration opportunities to early-stage fintech companies. These investments give banks early access to emerging technologies while providing startups with capital and credibility.

Banking-as-a-service arrangements represent the most integrated form of collaboration. Banks provide their regulatory licences, deposit infrastructure, and payment rails to fintech companies, which then build customer-facing products on top. This model allows fintech companies to offer banking products without obtaining their own licences, while banks earn revenue from infrastructure they have already built.

Where the Partnerships Are Concentrated

Certain areas of banking attract more fintech collaboration than others. Payments is the most active category, with banks partnering with fintech companies for real-time payments, cross-border transfers, and merchant acquiring services. Digital identity and customer onboarding is the second most active area, as banks seek to reduce friction in account opening while maintaining regulatory compliance.

Lending partnerships are growing rapidly, particularly in small business lending and consumer credit. Banks use fintech platforms to reach borrower segments they cannot serve efficiently through traditional channels. The fintech company provides the technology platform and customer acquisition, while the bank provides the capital and regulatory framework.

Compliance and regulatory technology is another growing area. Anti-money laundering, know-your-customer, and transaction monitoring all require sophisticated technology that fintech companies often provide more effectively than internal bank teams. Regulatory requirements continue to increase in complexity, making these partnerships increasingly valuable.

Challenges in Bank-Fintech Collaboration

Despite the growth in partnerships, significant challenges remain. Cultural differences between banks and fintech startups create friction. Banks prioritise risk management, regulatory compliance, and process consistency. Fintech companies prioritise speed, experimentation, and user experience. Bridging these different organisational cultures requires effort from both sides.

Technology integration is often more difficult than anticipated. Connecting a modern fintech platform to a bank’s legacy core banking system can be complex and time-consuming. Data formats, security protocols, and processing workflows may be incompatible. The integration challenge is one of the main reasons bank-fintech partnerships sometimes fail to deliver expected results.

Regulatory uncertainty also creates challenges. Banks are responsible for the compliance of their partners, even when the fintech company is providing the customer-facing service. This third-party risk management requirement means banks must conduct extensive due diligence on their fintech partners and monitor their ongoing compliance. For fintech startups, meeting these requirements can be burdensome and expensive.

The Direction of the Relationship

The 75% collaboration rate will likely continue to increase. The few banks that do not partner with fintech companies tend to be smaller institutions with limited technology budgets or banks in markets where fintech ecosystems are less developed. As fintech infrastructure matures and integration becomes easier, even these holdouts are likely to adopt partnership strategies.

The nature of partnerships is also evolving. Early collaborations were often experimental, with banks testing fintech solutions in limited pilots. Increasingly, fintech partnerships are becoming core to bank strategy, embedded in technology roadmaps and business plans. The distinction between bank and fintech is blurring as both sides adopt characteristics of the other. Banks are becoming more technology-driven, and fintech companies are becoming more regulated. The result is a financial services ecosystem that is more collaborative, more innovative, and better equipped to serve customers than either side could achieve alone.

Comments
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact crypto.news@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

What Is Jawboning? Jimmy Kimmel Suspension Sparks Legal Concerns About Trump Administration

What Is Jawboning? Jimmy Kimmel Suspension Sparks Legal Concerns About Trump Administration

The post What Is Jawboning? Jimmy Kimmel Suspension Sparks Legal Concerns About Trump Administration appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Topline Legal experts have raised concerns that ABC’s decision to pull “Jimmy Kimmel Live” from its airwaves following the host’s controversial comments about the death of Charlie Kirk, could be because the Trump administration violated free speech protections through a practice known as “jawboning.” Jimmy Kimmel speaks at Disney’s Advertising Upfront on May 13 in New York City. Disney via Getty Images Key Facts Disney-owned ABC announced Wednesday Kimmel’s show will be taken off the air “indefinitely,” which came after ABC affiliate owner Nexstar—which needs Federal Communications Commission approval to complete a planned acquisition of competitor Tegna Inc.—said it would not air the program due to Kimmel’s comments Monday regarding Kirk’s death and the reaction to it. The sudden move drew particular concern because it came only hours after FCC head Brendan Carr called for ABC to “take action” against Kimmel, and cryptically suggested his agency could take action saying, “We can do this the easy way or the hard way.” While ABC and Nexstar have not given any indication their decisions were influenced by Carr’s comments, the timing raised concerns among legal experts that the Trump administration’s threats may have unlawfully coerced ABC and Nexstar to punish Kimmel, which could constitute jawboning. Jawboning refers to “the use of official speech to inappropriately compel private action,” as defined by the Cato Institute, as governments or public officials—who cannot directly punish private actors for speech they don’t like—can use strongman tactics to try and indirectly silence critics or influence private companies’ actions. The practice is fairly loosely defined and there aren’t many legal safeguards dictating how violations of it are enforced, the Knight First Amendment Institute notes, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it can be unlawful and an impermissible First Amendment violation when it involves specific threats. The White…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 07:17
Why Fintech Platforms Are Growing Faster Than Traditional Banks

Why Fintech Platforms Are Growing Faster Than Traditional Banks

Fintech platforms are outpacing traditional banks in growth across nearly every measurable dimension. Customer acquisition rates, revenue growth, geographic expansion
Share
Techbullion2026/03/24 07:58
Japan’s CPI Reveals Critical 1.3% Inflation Rise in February as Core Pressure Eases Unexpectedly

Japan’s CPI Reveals Critical 1.3% Inflation Rise in February as Core Pressure Eases Unexpectedly

BitcoinWorld Japan’s CPI Reveals Critical 1.3% Inflation Rise in February as Core Pressure Eases Unexpectedly TOKYO, Japan — March 2025: Japan’s National Consumer
Share
bitcoinworld2026/03/24 08:10