CENTROlink vs. EKS: Choosing the Right Central Bank Payment Infrastructure for Fintech Growth in Europe

CENTROlink vs. EKS: Payment Infrastructure Comparison for Fintechs

Introduction

For fintechs building payment products in Europe, infrastructure choice determines cost efficiency, scalability, and product capabilities. Two central bank–operated retail payment systems in the Baltic region — Bank of Lithuania’s CENTROlink and Latvijas Banka’s EKS (Electronic Clearing System) — provide alternative paths to executing SEPA payments, including instant transfers.

Both systems enable euro payment processing across SEPA, but they differ in positioning, integration approach, and pricing structure. This comparison explains how they work and how their economics affect fintech growth.

1. Strategic Positioning

CENTROlink — SEPA Access Gateway

CENTROlink is a central bank SEPA gateway allowing licensed payment institutions, electronic money institutions, and banks to connect to SEPA schemes and offer:

• SEPA Credit Transfers (SCT)

• SEPA Instant Credit Transfers (SCT Inst)

• SEPA Direct Debit Core (SDD)

It functions as a standardized entry point to European payments infrastructure. ()

EKS — Clearing and Instant Payment Rail

EKS is Latvia’s central bank retail payment system providing:

• clearing for credit transfers

• instant payment processing

• reachability across SEPA

Its positioning emphasizes direct execution of payments via central bank rails, including access for non-bank PSPs. ()

2. Payment Capabilities

Credit Transfers

Both systems support standard SEPA credit transfers, enabling:

• IBAN-based payments across Europe

• merchant payouts and wallet transfers

• cross-border retail payments

Instant Payments

Both systems provide SEPA Instant processing with real-time confirmation and continuous availability.

The difference is strategic:

• CENTROlink: instant payments as part of a broader SEPA service bundle

• EKS: instant payments positioned as a core infrastructure component

Direct Debits

A key differentiator:

• CENTROlink: supports SEPA Direct Debit Core

• EKS: primarily positioned around credit transfers and instant payments

For fintechs offering subscription billing or creditor-driven collections, this matters significantly.

3. Participation Model

CENTROlink

Supports multiple connection approaches:

• direct participation

• indirect participation

• addressable BIC model

This flexibility suits fintechs at different maturity levels.

EKS

Latvijas Banka has actively opened EKS to direct participation by non-bank PSPs, allowing them to process euro payments without intermediary banks. ()

This creates:

• shorter payment chains

• fewer counterparties

• potentially lower operational complexity

4. Pricing Comparison

Pricing is one of the most important decision factors for fintechs. While both systems publish detailed fee schedules only after onboarding discussions, public information and official announcements reveal key differences.

CENTROlink Pricing Signals

• The Bank of Lithuania reduced CENTROlink operating fees by 50% in 2025.

• After 1 million payments per month, each payment can cost about €0.003. ()

Earlier public references indicated approximate transaction levels such as:

• around €0.01 per SCT or instant payment

• higher fees for direct debit transactions

(actual pricing varies by participation model and volume). ()

Implication for fintechs:CENTROlink pricing strongly rewards scale. High-volume payment platforms benefit from very low marginal transaction costs once thresholds are reached.

EKS Pricing Signals

Public industry summaries indicate approximate pricing components such as:

• monthly participation fee (reported up to roughly €1500)

• outgoing payment transaction fee around €0.006

• incoming payments may carry no fee

These figures illustrate the system’s focus on predictable operational costs and low transaction pricing. ()

Implication for fintechs:EKS may offer simpler upfront cost predictability, especially for firms with moderate or stable transaction volumes.

Pricing Strategy Differences

CENTROlink

• scale-driven economics

• multi-scheme bundle (SCT, Inst, SDD)

• optimized for pan-European fintech expansion

EKS

• transparent per-transaction model

• direct processing rail

• potentially attractive for regional operators or firms prioritizing cost certainty

5. Integration and Technical Orientation

CENTROlink

Integration is oriented around scheme participation and operational governance, reflecting its role as a SEPA access platform.

This suits fintechs that want:

• structured SEPA onboarding

• centralized scheme management

• regulatory clarity

EKS

EKS publishes detailed functional specifications for clearing and instant payments, emphasizing:

• technical messaging flows

• operational procedures

• integration clarity

This approach appeals to fintechs building their own payment processing stack.

6. Ecosystem Services

Both systems are evolving beyond basic transfers.

CENTROlink supports innovation layers such as proxy-based payment addressing and integration with European instant payment infrastructures.

EKS includes services like:

• proxy registry linking mobile numbers to accounts

• instant verification functionality for payment validation

These services help fintechs improve user experience and fraud prevention.

7. Which System Fits Your Fintech?

Choose CENTROlink if you:

• need full SEPA scheme coverage including direct debits

• expect rapid cross-European scaling

• want strong economies of scale in pricing

• prefer a gateway-style infrastructure

Choose EKS if you:

• prioritize direct execution via central bank rails

• focus mainly on credit transfers and instant payments

• want predictable operational costs

• value engineering-focused integration documentation

Conclusion

Both CENTROlink and EKS demonstrate how European central banks are reshaping payment infrastructure access for fintechs.

CENTROlink emphasizes pan-European SEPA access and scalable pricing, while EKS focuses on direct payment execution and transparent cost structure.

For fintech leaders, infrastructure choice is not purely technical — it is strategic. The right system depends on your product roadmap, transaction volumes, scheme requirements, and expansion plans.

Selecting wisely can lower payment costs, accelerate time to market, and strengthen your competitive advantage in the European digital payments landscape.