Currencycloud and Lorum both appear in infrastructure evaluations for platforms that need multi-currency capabilities and access to local payment rails. Both offer API-driven services. Both serve regulated institutions. Both connect to clearing schemes across multiple currencies. The differences are in what each provider is designed to do first: Currencycloud is an FX and payments engine. Lorum is a clearing and custody institution. That distinction shapes everything from the account architecture to the business model.
This comparison covers the structural differences between the two providers. It is not a ranking. Both serve legitimate use cases, and the right choice depends on the platform's operational requirements, regulatory obligations, and whether its primary infrastructure need is foreign exchange or clearing and custody.
What Currencycloud provides
Currencycloud is a B2B payments platform acquired by Visa in 2021 for approximately £700 million. It now operates as part of Visa Cross-Border Solutions. The platform provides APIs for FX conversion, multi-currency wallets, and cross-border payment execution, serving approximately 500 banking and technology clients across 180+ countries. It is regulated in the UK, US, Canada, the EU, and Australia.
Currencycloud's core strength is its FX engine. The platform offers real-time and persistent exchange rates across hundreds of currency pairs, with margin configuration tools that allow clients to set their own markups on conversions. Clients include Revolut, Starling Bank, and Lunar. The B2B4X model is designed for embedding: banks, fintechs, and card issuers integrate Currencycloud's FX and wallet infrastructure directly into their own products, using either hosted interfaces or direct API integration.
The account infrastructure is built around multi-currency wallets. Clients can hold balances in multiple currencies, convert between them programmatically, and execute payouts through local rails and correspondent banking connections. Currencycloud has processed more than $100 billion since inception. The platform supports mass payouts, scheduled disbursements, and payment status webhooks for event-driven workflows.
What Lorum provides
Lorum is a globally licensed specialist correspondent institution holding six regulatory licences across multiple jurisdictions. The infrastructure is focused on three functions: multi-currency clearing across 30+ markets, named custody accounts, and cash management including wholesale FX. Lorum does not operate a lending book and holds all client funds in 100% reserve.
The account model is structurally different from multi-currency wallets. Lorum provisions named accounts in the end customer's name, each with its own KYC profile and direct contractual link to the custodian. This means the custodian (Lorum) knows who the end customer is at the point of clearing, rather than seeing only the platform as the account holder. The model supports safeguarding, operational, escrow, and stablecoin wallet account types.
Lorum's clearing connectivity spans USD (Fedwire, ACH), EUR (SEPA, SEPA Instant), GBP (Faster Payments, CHAPS), AED (IPP, FTS), and additional currencies through direct access to local payment rails. The platform serves payroll and EOR platforms, fintech and PSPs, trading and investment platforms, and marketplaces. The geographic focus spans Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the Americas.
A structural comparison
The table below outlines where the two providers differ across key infrastructure dimensions. These are architectural differences, not feature rankings.
Where each provider fits
Currencycloud is well suited to platforms whose primary infrastructure requirement is foreign exchange. Its FX engine is among the strongest in the market, with real-time rate quoting, persistent rates, and granular margin controls that allow clients to build transparent pricing into their own products. For digital banks, neobanks, and card programmes that need to embed multi-currency wallets and FX conversion into their product experience, Currencycloud offers a mature, well-documented integration path. Visa ownership provides strategic advantages in terms of network reach and card programme connectivity, which is valuable for platforms operating within the Visa ecosystem.
Lorum addresses a different set of requirements. Platforms that need named custody accounts rather than multi-currency wallets will find a fundamentally different architecture. The named account model establishes a direct informational and contractual link between the custodian and the end customer, which satisfies regulatory requirements that are tightening under regimes like the FCA's Supplementary Regime and PSD3. Lorum's clearing connectivity spans 30+ markets globally, including USD, EUR, GBP, and AED, with direct access to local payment rails rather than routing through correspondent chains.
The ownership and business model difference is also relevant for platforms evaluating counterparty risk and strategic dependency. Currencycloud operates within Visa's corporate structure, which creates both advantages (network scale, brand credibility) and considerations (strategic alignment with Visa's broader commercial interests). Lorum operates independently as a non-lending, 100% reserve institution. Client funds are held in custody without exposure to a parent company's balance sheet, lending activity, or competing commercial priorities. For platforms managing client money under safeguarding requirements, the independence of the custody provider from card network or banking group interests affects counterparty risk assessment.
The infrastructure decision
The choice between Currencycloud and Lorum is not a question of which provider is better. It is a question of whether the platform's primary infrastructure need is FX and multi-currency embedding or clearing and custody. A digital bank building multi-currency accounts with seamless FX conversion has different requirements from a payroll platform that must hold employee funds in named, segregated accounts across multiple jurisdictions. As regulatory frameworks converge on stricter fund segregation and custody requirements, the distinction between wallet-based and custody-based architectures becomes more consequential.
Platforms should evaluate the account structure (multi-currency wallets vs. named custody accounts), the regulatory framework governing fund protection, the geographic coverage required, whether the provider's FX capability matches the platform's conversion needs, and whether ownership by a card network creates strategic alignment or dependency. The answers to these questions will determine which infrastructure is the right fit.
