Pricing a payment is free. The route is the product.

Your last twelve months of FX payments, each measured against an independent market reference, totalled into what currency conversion actually cost you.

• USD 1,500 up front for the work, whatever it finds. USD 5,000 more only if it measures at least USD 50,000 of avoidable cost: your measured cost above the top of what companies your size pay, less the margin of error. Estimated provider prices never count
• Every payment's all-in cost: spread, fees and slippage together, never the provider's own rate
• A margin of error on every figure, and a headline total with that margin already taken off, so the number survives your own treasury testing it
• Where a corridor has one measured, how many times the lower no-negotiation price you paid
• With invoice dates, what the rate move between invoice and payment cost you: the exposure a hedge would have covered, kept apart from what the provider charged
• Payments we could not price, listed with the reason, never estimated
• Upload your bank or treasury export as it is: common column names are read without reformatting

The free assessment shows one route first, so nobody pays before seeing proof. On 10 million a year of payments, cost one percentage point above the official average for the route is 100,000 a year; the audit costs one-twentieth of that and produces the negotiation sheet that recovers it. The flat fee pays for the work; the larger fee is due only when the audit has measured at least ten times it in avoidable cost, so a company that is already well priced pays for the audit and nothing more.

The audit across several entities, or from your SWIFT payment messages, which attributes every fee each bank in the chain deducted.

• Everything in the single-entity audit, for every entity in the group
• From payment messages: each correspondent and receiving bank's deduction, per payment, so the lifting fees are named rather than inferred
• One consolidated negotiation sheet across the group's banks

USD 3,000 up front and USD 10,000 more only if it measures at least USD 100,000 of avoidable cost. Twice the single audit because the work is: several entities' books reconciled into one view, and payment messages parsed to the fee each bank took. Groups are where correspondent fees hide, because they route through more banks.

Every quarter, the payments you made since the last review measured against the benchmark: what you paid above it, corridor by corridor and provider by provider, and what changed.

• A monthly upload of your bank or treasury export, or a feed: date, amount out, amount in
• What you paid above the benchmark across every payment in the quarter, with the margin of error taken off
• Per corridor and per provider, against measured costs on the same corridor where there are enough of them
• What moved since last quarter: a provider's price, a corridor's range, a route that became cheaper

An audit is a snapshot and goes stale within weeks, because the lower all-in on a corridor keeps changing. The review keeps the number current for half an audit's fee each quarter. From 750 for one entity and its main corridors; more entities or corridors raise the scope.

Continuous benchmarking of your corridors: what your payments cost against the market, a negotiation sheet for each bank, and alerts when a route's price, limit or licence changes.

• The corridor benchmark matrix for every route you pay on, refreshed daily
• A bank negotiation sheet per bank: your cost, the official average, what banks advertise and the lowest published price at your size
• Alerts on price, limit and licence changes for the providers on your routes
• Your payments measured continuously, not once a year

From 20,000 a year for a single entity and a handful of corridors, rising to about 60,000 with entities and routes. Priced against what it replaces: an analyst's time, and the basis points a treasury leaves on the table between annual reviews.

For payment, remittance and crypto firms that want independent proof of their pricing: the conversions you choose to share, measured against an independent reference by pair and size, your own pricing policy tested, as a signed report you can show clients and, where rules ask for it, your compliance team. You run it; nothing is shared without you.

• Median, 90th percentile, low and high cost per corridor, each with its margin of error
• Your claim tested as stated: a cost ceiling, or that the amount quoted is the amount that lands
• A signed record buyers verify themselves, free, without an account
• Re-measured every quarter on a fresh set of receipts, so the record stays current
• Every figure also stated as a mark-up over the ECB reference rate, the measure EU payment rules use, where the ECB publishes the pair
• For crypto-asset firms: a monthly execution report, every client conversion measured by pair and size with your execution policy's limits tested, signed (MiCA Article 78)

Priced for the measurement, never for the result: the method is the one every buyer's audit uses, and a record cannot be edited once issued. From 9,000 a year for up to five corridors; more corridors raise the scope, not the standard. The price is what makes independence affordable to keep: a verifier that needed any one provider's goodwill would not be one.

A signed map of the FX and payment options for one intent: every rail and provider the graph holds for the pair and size, with access facts, documented capacity, settlement window, all-in cost against an independent reference with its basis, the evidence class of each fact, and what is unknown. Inside, outside or unknown against your own constraints. A guide, not advice.

• 9 USD a map up to 1,000 a month, 4 up to 10,000, 1.50 above, for treasury systems and platforms mapping every material release
• A map_id with an expiry, bound to a hash of the intent, for an approval packet or a system to require before release
• Tested against your policy, an AP2 open mandate or x402 payment requirements, without anything being executed
• Reconcile what landed against the map: expected band beside realised cost, signed
• The same object by REST, by MCP for agents, and in the Guide for people

Priced per map because the decision is per release. One failed high-value payment avoided, or one missing leg found before release, pays for years of maps; a repeated miss of 10 to 40 basis points on a thick corridor costs more than the subscription in a month. No share of volume, so the price never depends on where the money goes.

Change events on the corridors you map: a candidate added or removed, a cost band moving by more than the reference's error band, a documented capacity changing, an access fact going stale, the coverage tier changing.

• Routing-severity changes only, an alert that fires on everything gets filtered, and then the one that mattered is filtered too
• Every alert carries the source and the date the change was established
• The full history stays public, so the watching can be verified before it is bought

A map is read once and acted on for a quarter; however good it gets, it is a poor business. What recurs is the change. The value here is latency, not the fact, the fact is published free at /v1/changes precisely so the subscription can be judged on its speed rather than taken on trust.

The same verified route, eligibility and pricing facts behind everything above, licensed for redistribution under your own brand: a fintech's dashboard, a treasury tool, or an AI agent that needs ground truth instead of a guess.

• Everything in full register access, licensed for redistribution to your own customers or users
• Evidence tier, source and freshness date on every fact returned, so your interface can show its own reader what is verified and what is not
• The advice boundary carried in every response: evidence and alternatives, never a bare instruction, so your product inherits the same discipline rather than presenting our facts as your advice
• A named contact for correction requests, since a whitelabel partner's own customers become a source of the same kind our outreach already relies on

Priced above full register access because a redistribution licence is worth more than a seat: your customers become readers of this register without ever knowing it exists, which is the exact channel a data business wants and the exact liability a licensor has to price for. The number reflects the second thing, not the first. Every AI agent or fintech tool that answers a routing or funding question with our facts and gets it wrong is a support ticket that reaches us with your brand on it, not ours.