From the outside, bank connectivity often looks like a solved problem. Connect to banks, move data, initiate payments. In practice, it remains one of the most persistent operational challenges in treasury.
What looks simple on the surface – “just connect to banks globally” – often becomes complicated as soon as organizations operate across countries, currencies, and banking partners. As Robin Wortelboer, Integration Consultant, at Cobase, notes, the core reason is structural: “There is no single connectivity standard that works everywhere, for every bank, and for every use case.”
This is precisely why specialist connectivity providers exist. Achieving reliable, scalable global coverage is not about choosing one technology per se, but about mastering many of them, and knowing when to use which. “A vendor like us exists because full coverage requires understanding all connectivity flavours,” Wortelboer explains. “Most solutions in the market cover only a subset.”
Lower barriers do not remove fragmentation
Among those solutions, there is no shortage of developments that appear to lower the barrier to bank connectivity. API aggregators exist, but many are rooted in PSD2, retail banking models, or limited regional coverage. They can be effective within those constraints, but they rarely meet the needs of large, multi-entity organisations operating across jurisdictions.
Neo-banks can help corporates open accounts in markets that are otherwise difficult to access. However, as Wortelboer points out: “They don’t solve enterprise-grade payment orchestration or deep bank integration. They certainly are useful in specific scenarios, however they do not replace the need for robust connectivity into the traditional banking system. From a connectivity perspective they add another party to connect to for corporates.”
Bank APIs themselves are improving. Large banks are expanding API scope beyond basic payment initiation, moving past regulatory pilots towards more functional offerings.
But coverage and maturity still vary significantly by bank, by country, and by product. Technical standards differ, typically the API does not cover all relevant services the bank has to offer, documentation quality is inconsistent, and behavior in live environments is far from uniform.
Global banks offer multi-banking services, but most have been limited in reach and functionality (e.g. these typically rely on Swift MT messaging). This is effective for balance reporting and cash visibility, yet, as Wortelboer puts it, “it has limited transactional scope – useful for visibility, not for full operational control”.
ERPs sometimes provide native multi-bank connectivity, but in practice this almost always requires a specialized implementation partner. Even then, it does not remove the underlying fragmentation. Each bank still behaves differently, and those differences still need to be managed. The result is not a lack of options (quite the opposite), but a lack of complete coverage.
Connectivity is inherently hybrid
In practice, full global coverage requires a broad and deliberately hybrid connectivity stack.
“APIs should be used where they make sense,” says Wortelboer. Where banks offer mature APIs with sufficient scope, they can provide speed and flexibility. However, the technical variation between banks remains high. “Leveraging existing integrations, experience, and scale materially reduces complexity and implementation risk. Corporates will need to bridge a substantial period of hybrid connectivity supporting legacy and API integrations”.
Host-to-host connectivity remains the backbone of corporate-to-bank interaction for bulk payments. It is widely adopted, technically straightforward, and built on proven operational processes. That combination makes it fast to implement and highly reliable – particularly for high-volume, business-critical payment flows. “For bulk payments, host-to-host is still the workhorse,” Wortelboer notes.
Country-specific standards still matter, and often more than global approaches assume. Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard (EBICS) in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and France is a prime example. Its structured framework and strong bank adoption enable stable, predictable implementations. In these markets, EBICS often outperforms more generic connectivity approaches precisely because it reflects local banking reality.
Swift remains essential for global reach. Most banks worldwide support some form of Swift connectivity, making it the practical default where APIs or host-to-host connections are unavailable or impractical. As a Swift member, Cobase’s own bank identifier code (BIC) enables clients to connect in markets where they have limited local presence or cannot rely on the footprint of their global banks.
Swift Business Connect, which allows clients to efficiently set up their own SWIFT BIC, supported by a 3rd party, adds another layer for specific use cases. “It’s not for everyone,” Wortelboer explains, “but for clients where owning a BIC makes sense and direct Swift onboarding is too complex, we can act as a Business Connect Provider.” This enables faster onboarding or migration to Swift Alliance Cloud while keeping alternative connectivity options available, so clients can choose the most cost-effective set-up per bank and per country.
Orchestration makes connectivity usable
Connectivity methods on their own do not solve treasury problems, however. The real challenge is running them as a coherent operating model without the corporate having to build a separate organization for this purpose.
A mature set-up combines direct APIs where available, host-to-host connections for scale and reliability, country standards where they dominate, and Swift where global reach is required. But without orchestration on top, this quickly becomes another form of fragmentation.
“That orchestration layer is critical,” stresses Wortelboer. It standardizes workflows, data structures, approval structures, security controls, and monitoring across all connectivity types. Treasury teams interact with a single operating environment, even when the underlying connections differ bank by bank and country by country.
This is where Cobase goes beyond pure aggregators or connectivity-only providers. By combining hybrid connectivity with treasury and payment hub capabilities, the platform turns multiple connectivity channels into a single, controlled operating layer.
An invisible support
Among all the connectivity complexity, Wortelboer concludes: “A mature global banking set-up requires a hybrid strategy – direct APIs where possible, host-to-host, EBICS, or Swift where required – plus orchestration on top.”
Connectivity done well is rarely visible, he adds. Instead, it shows up as fewer workarounds, fewer exceptions, and fewer surprises at the end of the day. That is the difference between partial connectivity and connectivity that actually supports how treasury operates.
Recognising Cobase as the winner of TMI’s Best Bank Connectivity Award 2026, acknowledges this reality. Not that bank connectivity can be simplified away – but that, with the right support, it can be handled properly, at scale, and in a way that works in practice.
