What's the Real Cost of MANTL vs Building In-House?
Modern account opening is now a platform decision, not just a UX facelift. To answer “MANTL or build?” you have to model 5-year TCO across licensing, engineering, integration, compliance, and change management—then compare it to the opportunity cost of shipping months (or years) later.
The real cost difference between MANTL and an in-house build is rarely just licensing vs. “free” internal resources. A realistic comparison adds up time-to-value, risk, and operating drag: months of product management and UX, integration to core and KYC vendors, ongoing compliance changes, incident response, and talent churn. MANTL behaves like a productized, vendor-backed layer with pre-built flows and roadmap, while in-house builds behave like a permanent software product your bank must design, staff, secure, and modernize indefinitely. The choice that wins is the one that delivers funded accounts and balances faster at an acceptable risk profile over a 3–5 year horizon.
How Should You Compare MANTL vs In-House?
A Simple Model for Comparing MANTL and In-House Builds
Use this operating model to compare the cost, speed, and risk of adopting MANTL versus owning an internally built account opening platform over the next 3–5 years.
Define → Quantify → Compare → Decide → Govern
- Define the scope clearly: Products (DDA, savings, CDs, small business), channels (web, mobile, branch), and key journeys (new-to-bank, existing customer add-on).
- Quantify TCO by scenario: For both MANTL and in-house, model build/implementation, integrations, licensing, infrastructure, maintenance, and enhancement costs over 3–5 years.
- Compare time-to-value: Estimate when each scenario delivers its first funded accounts and how quickly you can expand to additional products and segments.
- Score risk & flexibility: Rate each option across cybersecurity, compliance agility, vendor concentration risk, and your ability to change flows without major rewrites.
- Decide with the P&L: Present the combined financial and risk picture to product, risk, and finance sponsors so they can choose the mix of speed, cost, and control that best fits your growth strategy.
Account Opening Platform Maturity Matrix
| Capability | From (Ad Hoc Build) | To (Productized Platform) | Owner | Primary KPI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experience Design | One-off forms and flows built per product | Configurable, tested templates for all applications with shared patterns | Digital/Product | Completion Rate, Abandonment |
| Integration Layer | Custom point-to-point integrations to core and KYC vendors | Re-usable integration framework and vendor adapters maintained as a product | Technology/Architecture | Incidents, Time-to-Change |
| Compliance & Controls | Manual review of changes and scattered documentation | Version-controlled flows, auditable changes, automated checks, and vendor support | Risk & Compliance | Findings, Remediation Time |
| Experimentation & Offers | Hard-coded offers, limited testing | Configurable offers, in-flight A/B testing, and rapid iteration on copy and steps | Marketing/Product | Funded Rate, Cost per Funded Account |
| Analytics & Attribution | High-level traffic and conversion stats | End-to-end funnel from click to funded account, segmented by channel and offer | Analytics/RevOps | Time-to-Funding, ROMI |
| Roadmap Ownership | Competing internal priorities; upgrades delayed | Shared roadmap with vendor, plus clear internal backlog for bank-specific needs | Digital/Product & Vendor Management | Feature Velocity, Incident Trend |
Client Snapshot: Quantifying Platform vs. Build for Deposits Growth
A mid-sized bank modeled a 5-year TCO for modernizing digital account opening. Rather than assuming an in-house build was cheaper, they quantified engineering, integration, and compliance maintenance and compared it to a platform-based approach. The result: they accelerated launch, improved completion rate, and focused internal teams on differentiated analytics and experience design. For additional banking examples, see: How Do Banks Increase Funded Accounts? and our broader Banking & Finance growth programs.
The goal isn’t to “pick a tool,” it’s to fund more quality accounts faster with acceptable risk. A structured comparison of MANTL vs. in-house makes the trade-offs visible and ties your decision to funded accounts, balances, and long-term operating cost.
Frequently Asked Questions about MANTL vs Building In-House
Turn Your Account Opening Decision into a Growth Engine
We’ll help you model MANTL vs in-house, quantify the trade-offs, and design a roadmap that grows funded accounts and balances while managing risk.
Explore the Banking Case Study Get your growth audit