SAMFCore vs Crassula vs SDK.finance vs Velmie: Neobanks (2026)

Methodology and commercial affiliation

This is a company-operated, Swiss AMF AG-affiliated acquisition website. Swiss AMF AG is commercially associated with SAMFCore; this comparison is not an independent endorsement. We reviewed official public vendor and regulator documentation on 11 October 2026. Vendor descriptions show advertised scope, not independently tested performance, certification or permission for a particular buyer.

We have not audited the four products, tested their production deployments or inspected private contracts. All scenarios below are proposed buyer tests, not vendor case studies. Missing detail means “request evidence”, not “feature absent”. The comparison focuses on crypto-neobank user flows and acceptance criteria rather than reproducing the broad four-vendor analysis on whitelabelbanking.io. For system-layer context, read our neobank technology-stack and acquisition guide.

1. Define who may deliver the service

Before comparing a “crypto neobank”, write down the customer-facing entity, account provider, payment provider, card issuer, custodian and software operator. These roles can belong to different organisations. A customer may see one brand while relying on several contracts and ledgers. Neither a software purchase nor a connector makes those counterparties interchangeable.

FINMA: licensing types separates Swiss authorisation types. FINMA: SRO supervision explains SRO anti-money-laundering supervision of relevant financial intermediaries: it is not FINMA bank authorisation or prudential portfolio-manager authorisation. Check the actual entity and relevant supervisory records, using FINMA: authorised institutions where applicable. The term “neobank” does not establish deposit-taking permission.

An EU electronic-money institution operates under a different regime; see the EUR-Lex: Electronic Money Directive 2009/110/EC for the legal framework. An EMI relationship is not a Swiss banking licence or blanket crypto custody permission. Ask qualified counsel to map the planned activities and customer countries. Existing approvals, passporting scope, safeguarding and ownership-change requirements must be checked for the relevant entity, not inferred from the platform's marketing.

2. A decision matrix without an invented winner

Use this matrix to decide what to request in the next meeting. Each public description is vendor-stated. It does not establish equal implementation depth, current provider availability or buyer eligibility.

Public documentation and the corresponding buyer verification
Vendor	Documented starting point	Evidence to request
SAMFCore	SAMFCore: overview describes individual/business onboarding, fiat accounts, payments, cards and digital assets. SAMFCore: licensing offers annual, perpetual usage and optional full-code perpetual terms.	Demonstrate enabled flows; identify selected providers; separate usage, modification and underlying IP rights.
Crassula	Crassula: platform explanation describes white-label modules and provider integrations. Its Crassula: crypto workflow places wallet creation at the custody-provider layer.	Identify purchased modules, activated connectors and provider contracts; demonstrate business verification and custody exceptions.
SDK.finance	SDK.finance: acquiring source code and SDK.finance: FAQ describe annual/lifetime source-code options. SDK.finance: crypto-to-fiat software describes crypto-to-fiat workflows and onboarding.	Check territory and maintenance terms; reproduce a build; test the required crypto and fiat provider configuration.
Velmie	Velmie: delivery describes cloud, on-premise and source-code delivery. Velmie: features describes individual/business accounts, wallets and card features.	Confirm delivery rights, operating responsibilities and partner approvals; test the proposed digital-asset/card bridge.

Source access is not exclusive to SAMFCore, and Velmie is not cloud-only. Conversely, white-label branding does not imply code ownership. Price comparison should use the same deployment, staffing, support and provider scope; no project quotation or total-cost ranking can be established from this matrix.

Proposed acceptance journey, not a tested vendor deployment. Every provider gate must be evidenced separately.

3. Test individual and corporate onboarding separately

Start with an individual whose identity check passes but sanctions screening needs review. Can the account remain restricted while an operator assesses the alert? Show the provider response, risk decision, account status and audit history. Then let the identity service time out: the workflow should expose an unresolved state, not turn an unanswered request into approval.

For a corporate customer, add a layered ownership structure, two authorised users and different payment limits. Require evidence of beneficial ownership and authority to act. Change a director after onboarding and inspect re-verification. A business profile field is not proof of a complete KYB process; determine which obligations sit with your team and which checks a provider performs.

SAMFCore: API integrations documents SAMFCore personal/business registration and KYC/KYB workflow integration. Crassula: developer resources lists Crassula private/business verification and limits. SDK.finance: crypto-to-fiat software describes SDK.finance document-upload and vendor-integrated or manual KYC. Velmie: features describes Velmie business accounts with configurable roles and limits; obtain deployment-specific KYB evidence rather than assume identical coverage.

The useful comparison is therefore the completed evidence chain. Request an export linking customer, ownership records, provider results, approving operator and the permissions ultimately enabled. Clarify retention, access and correction procedures before migration. An AML screen or “automated onboarding” label does not replace the operator's responsibility for customer acceptance.

4. Follow money across fiat, wallets and cards

Fiat funding and IBAN allocation

Ask the vendor to onboard that business to the proposed account partner, allocate the intended IBAN structure and ingest a fiat receipt. Identify whether the account is named, virtual or omnibus, who holds the customer funds and which ledger records the obligation. Demonstrate a rejected payment and a returned transfer; a displayed balance is not sufficient reconciliation evidence.

SAMFCore: provider integrations conditions SAMFCore IBAN workflows on the banking integration. Crassula: platform explanation describes Crassula banking and payment-network integrations; Velmie's Velmie: features lists accounts with IBANs or crypto addresses. These statements establish software scope, not that a specific provider will approve your customer segment. Obtain the executed provider contract, approved countries, services and change-of-control conditions.

Wallet custody and withdrawal

Convert part of the receipt into a supported asset, show the custody record and request a withdrawal to a new address. Who controls signing, sets withdrawal policy and can suspend execution? Test a screened destination, a duplicate callback and a transaction delayed on-chain. Specify the network as well as the token; an asset ticker alone does not define an operational route.

Crassula's Crassula: crypto workflow explicitly describes wallet creation by a service provider at the custody level. SAMFCore's SAMFCore: provider integrations describes selected wallet, custody and liquidity providers. Velmie: Fireblocks integration describes Velmie's Fireblocks integration. Identify the contractual custody arrangement instead of inferring it from a technology partner's name. Public documentation alone cannot demonstrate the buyer's key-control policy or custody authorisation.

Stablecoins and FX are separate decisions

Run a fiat-to-stablecoin conversion, then the reverse route. Capture the quote, expiry, spread, fees, network charge and final ledger entries. Let the quote expire before confirmation. Determine who sources liquidity, bears price movement and handles an unavailable off-ramp. “Stable” is not a promise of immediate redemption or risk-free settlement.

Crassula: Nodu connector describes a Crassula Nodu connector for fiat/stablecoin conversion; Crassula: exchange documentation explains its exchange workflows. SDK.finance: crypto banking software lists SDK.finance stablecoin transaction support, while SDK.finance: crypto-to-fiat software references provider-powered FX. Velmie: digital assets describes Velmie stablecoin wallets and crypto-to-fiat bridges. SAMFCore's overview describes FX and digital-asset exchange, but that alone does not verify a particular stablecoin/network route: request the enabled asset-provider matrix.

Cards need sponsor-level evidence

Use the resulting fiat balance for a card authorisation followed by a smaller settlement and a reversal. Show the hold, released amount, final accounting and provider events. Then freeze the card and attempt a transaction. Separately identify the issuer or sponsor, processor and dispute responsibilities. A virtual-card demo does not prove programme approval.

SAMFCore's SAMFCore: provider integrations, Crassula's Crassula: platform explanation, SDK.finance's SDK.finance: crypto banking software and Velmie's Velmie: features describe card-related capabilities. None of those descriptions establishes the buyer's issuing rights. Confirm the sponsor accepts the crypto-related funding model and target countries; inspect restrictions rather than promise universal card availability.

5. Compare control, security and migration obligations

SAMFCore: licensing distinguishes SAMFCore continuing usage rights from its optional full-code perpetual tier. Neither should be described as automatic transfer of underlying IP. SDK.finance: acquiring source code describes SDK.finance source-code demonstration and audit stages and a one-country licensing scope; verify the current contract. Velmie's Velmie: delivery includes source delivery and ownership language: ask exactly which assets, dependencies and rights transfer instead of treating that wording as universal ownership of every component.

Ask each supplier who can build, modify, deploy and support the software after handover. Obtain a dependency inventory, reproducible build instructions and licence exclusions. Perpetual rights do not eliminate hosting, engineering, compliance or third-party charges. Managed delivery can reduce internal tasks but does not remove the buyer's need for exports and an exit plan.

Evaluate security through scoped evidence, not an invented certification league table. Request privileged-access controls, separation of approval duties, vulnerability remediation, incident procedures and a tested restore. If cardholder data enters your systems, assess the scope with programme partners against PCI SSC: PCI DSS. A provider integration or cloud deployment is not proof that the whole product satisfies the standard.

For migration, define the accounts, pending transactions, historical records and provider identifiers that must survive. Ask the receiving team to restore a masked export, rebuild balances and reconcile to counterparties. Set a cutover plan with rollback and a clear owner for exceptions. Provider approvals, custody controls and corporate changes can run on different timetables; a vendor's migration label cannot settle those dependencies.

6. A buyer checklist for comparable demos

Give every supplier the same written scenario and request a record of what was configured, simulated or executed against a provider sandbox. Keep sensitive customer data out of demonstrations. Mark results confirmed, conditional or unresolved; these are evidence states, not artificial vendor scores.

Define the legal scope. Name each entity, customer country and financial activity. Obtain counsel's assessment and the relevant provider eligibility requirements.
Fix the delivery scope. List purchased modules, user roles, APIs and responsibility for implementation. Separate standard configuration from proposed development.
Prove onboarding. Run individual review and corporate ownership-change scenarios. Export decisions, restrictions and audit events.
Reconcile the money. Join funding, conversion, withdrawal, card hold and reversal to provider identifiers and ledger postings. Replay duplicate events.
Verify partner access. Request enabled-service schedules, executed contracts and any change-of-control or programme approvals. A demo credential is not a production approval.
Exercise operational failure. Disable a provider, delay a callback and restore a backup. Record what customers see and who clears exceptions.
Inspect handover rights. Check licensed entity, territory, modifications, transfer, source delivery and third-party exclusions. Test export and build usability.
Attach acceptance to the contract. Record deliverables, unresolved dependencies, remediation ownership and recurring costs before committing.

For an acquisition, compare these requirements with the existing company and platform offer; a vendor's general catalogue does not expand the purchased licence. The defensible choice is the configuration whose legal responsibilities, provider approvals and important customer journeys you can explain and reproduce. Where evidence is missing, make it a transaction condition rather than fill the gap with a marketing claim.

Questions and answers

Which platform is best for a crypto neobank?

There is no documented universal winner. Compare your required customer journeys, signed provider approvals, software rights and operational evidence. This article proposes acceptance tests; it does not report comparative benchmarks or independent vendor audits.

Do these software licences include a banking licence?

No. Software usage or source-code rights do not grant banking, payment, custody or card-issuing permission. Swiss SRO AML supervision, FINMA bank authorisation and EU electronic-money permissions are separate legal regimes. Required permissions depend on the entity, jurisdiction and activity.

Does SDK.finance offer lifetime source-code licensing?

Yes. Its official documentation describes annual and lifetime source-code licensing. Confirm territory, modification, hosting, maintenance and transfer provisions in the current agreement rather than assuming source-code access is exclusive to another vendor.

Does Velmie offer source-code delivery?

Yes. Velmie describes cloud, on-premise and source-code delivery. These leave different operating responsibilities with the buyer. Confirm the actual rights, dependencies, handover deliverables and third-party exclusions in the signed contract.

Does a Crassula connector mean a provider has approved my business?

No. A connector describes a technical integration. Account, custody, card or payment access still depends on the relevant provider's contract, eligibility checks, enabled services and any required approval for your entity and programme.

What does SAMFCore's perpetual licence provide?

It provides continuing contractual software usage rights within the agreed scope. SAMFCore also publishes an optional full-source-code perpetual tier. Usage rights and code access are different, and neither automatically transfers the underlying intellectual property or grants financial authorisation.

What is the most useful vendor demo for this purchase?

Ask every supplier to run the same masked end-to-end scenario: business onboarding, fiat receipt, conversion, wallet withdrawal, card settlement and reversal. Require ledger records, provider events and operator decisions, including duplicate events and failed approvals, not only successful screens.

Official source notes

Reviewed on 11 October 2026. Vendor sources support public feature and delivery descriptions only. FINMA and EU legislation support the distinction between legal regimes; PCI SSC supplies the card-data standard reference. We did not verify certificates, benchmark performance or private approvals. Pages and commercial terms can change; request current documents for the proposed purchase.

SAMFCore vs Crassula vs SDK.finance vs Velmie for Crypto Neobanks (2026)