ClearBank and Lorum both provide infrastructure that regulated platforms depend on to hold funds and process payments. Both offer API-driven account services and access to local payment rails. Both are positioned as alternatives to legacy banking infrastructure. The differences are in scope, geography, regulatory framework, and the specific problems each provider is designed to solve.
This comparison covers the structural differences between the two providers. It is not a ranking. ClearBank and Lorum serve different primary markets and different platform types, and the right choice depends on where a platform operates, what currencies it needs, and what account structures its regulators require.
What ClearBank provides
ClearBank is the first new clearing bank established in the United Kingdom in over 250 years. It holds a UK banking licence and is fully regulated by the PRA and FCA. ClearBank also operates in Europe through a separate European entity. The bank holds customer deposits directly at the Bank of England (for GBP) and the European Central Bank (for EUR), which provides a specific form of counterparty protection: maximum liquidity and minimum credit risk on deposited funds.
ClearBank's infrastructure is built around embedded banking and real-time clearing. It provides real accounts and virtual accounts (vIBANs) across multiple account types: operating accounts, safeguarded accounts, client money accounts, and designated accounts for individual customers. The platform supports Faster Payments, BACS, CHAPS for GBP, and SEPA for EUR. It employs approximately 700 people and holds £18 billion in customer deposits as of early 2026.
The client base includes major fintech platforms such as Revolut, Coinbase, and Wealthify, alongside a growing number of EMIs, payment institutions, and corporate embedded finance clients. ClearBank has recently expanded into digital asset infrastructure through its partnership with Circle, positioning itself to support stablecoin activity within the evolving UK regulatory framework.
What Lorum provides
Lorum is a globally licensed specialist correspondent institution holding six regulatory licences across multiple jurisdictions. Unlike ClearBank, Lorum is not a deposit-taking bank. It operates a non-lending, 100% reserve model focused exclusively on three functions: multi-currency clearing across 30+ markets, named custody accounts, and cash management including wholesale FX and automated liquidity sweeps.
The account model provisions named accounts in the end customer's name, each with its own KYC profile and direct contractual relationship with Lorum as custodian. This is distinct from the virtual account model where a vIBAN is linked to a pooled master account held in the platform's name. Lorum's named account model establishes a direct informational link between the custodian and the end customer at the point of clearing, which provides a different level of transparency for compliance and audit purposes.
Lorum's clearing connectivity covers USD (Fedwire, ACH), EUR (SEPA, SEPA Instant), GBP (Faster Payments, CHAPS), AED (IPP, FTS), and additional currencies across 30+ markets globally. The platform serves payroll and EOR platforms, fintech and PSPs, trading and investment platforms, and marketplaces that operate across multiple jurisdictions.
A structural comparison
The table below outlines the key architectural differences between ClearBank and Lorum. These are not feature rankings but structural distinctions that affect how platforms integrate, how funds are protected, and what regulatory requirements each provider satisfies.
Where each provider fits
ClearBank is the strongest fit for platforms that need UK-centric clearing infrastructure with direct Bank of England settlement. Its combination of a UK banking licence, FSCS deposit protection on eligible deposits, and real-time Faster Payments access makes it the natural choice for fintechs and EMIs building products primarily for the UK market. The breadth of account types (safeguarded, client money, designated) provides flexibility for platforms operating under different FCA regulatory requirements. ClearBank's investment in digital asset infrastructure and its partnership with Circle position it well for platforms that need both fiat clearing and stablecoin support within the UK regulatory perimeter.
Lorum addresses a different geographic and structural requirement. Platforms that need USD, EUR, GBP, and AED clearing through a single global integration will find coverage that ClearBank does not currently offer. The named custody account model is also structurally distinct: rather than holding funds in pooled accounts with virtual IBAN attribution, Lorum provisions accounts in each end customer's name at the custodian level. This architecture satisfies regulatory requirements that are tightening under the FCA's Supplementary Regime, PSD3, and the DFSA's own custody framework.
For platforms with multi-jurisdictional requirements, the comparison often comes down to whether the primary need is deep UK and European clearing infrastructure (ClearBank) or broad multi-market clearing with named custody across 30+ global markets (Lorum). Some platforms may use both providers for different parts of their geographic footprint, which is a reflection of how financial infrastructure is increasingly modular rather than monolithic.
The infrastructure decision
ClearBank and Lorum are not direct substitutes. They are built for different primary use cases. A UK fintech that needs Faster Payments clearing with Bank of England settlement has a clear path to ClearBank. A payroll platform that needs to hold employee funds in named, individually settled accounts across multiple jurisdictions has a clear path to Lorum.
Platforms should evaluate the geographic coverage required, the account structure their regulators expect (pooled with virtual attribution vs. individually named), the currencies they need to clear, and whether the provider's deposit or custody model aligns with their fiduciary obligations. The infrastructure decision is not about choosing the better provider. It is about choosing the architecture that matches the operational and regulatory reality the platform operates within.
