P2P payment apps

Among financial apps, peer-to-peer (P2P) payment solutions stand out. In Denmark and Sweden, MobilePay and Swish dominate, achieving the highest App Pulse scores across all app categories. These apps are not just the top performers in finance–they rank among the best across all industries. The Netherlands, however, presents a different story. Here Tikkie is widely adopted and well-received, but it does not perform as well as its Nordic counterparts. This discrepancy raises an intriguing question. Why do these services, operating in similarly tech-savvy markets, perform so differently?

It began as a simple idea–to send money with just a phone number. Now it is one of the most trusted payment solutions in Sweden. Swish delivers on everyday convenience with a seamless interface, instant transactions, and bank-grade security. From online shopping to splitting bills, millions rely on Swish to move money in seconds. Its standout App Pulse score of 88 reflects a product that just works. It is fast, intuitive, and deeply embedded in daily life. It is proof that simple, purposeful design can drive widespread adoption and lasting impact.

Despite this challenge, with over 90% of local users relying on them, MobilePay and Swish have become the most widely used payment facilitators in Sweden and Denmark. This strong network effect has fueled their evolution from simple P2P payment tools to comprehensive financial ecosystems, now widely accepted in retail, e-commerce, and for subscription services.

In contrast, the Dutch alternative, Tikkie, follows a slightly different approach. Instead of making payments within the app, Tikkie acts as a payment request generator. Users can input an amount, split it among friends, and generate a payment link. The link is shared, usually via WhatsApp, so recipients can complete the payment through their banking apps. In MobilePay and Swish, both sender and receiver must be on the platform. Only the person requesting money needs to use Tikkie. 

Swish and MobilePay allow users to both send and request money, while Tikkie is still primarily used for payment requests. In Tikkie, the transaction itself occurs outside the app, within the traditional banking infrastructure. Tikkie simplifies splitting costs, sharing payment details, and prefilling banking info, but the banking app handles the transfer itself.

Tikkie is less dependent on network effects, and can operate regardless of parties’ presence on the platform. Maybe this explains why the adoption rate in the Dutch population is comparatively low (50%). The multi-app payment process in Tikkie also results in a more fragmented user experience. As a result, key factors like "making life easier" and "ease of use" drive performance differences between MobilePay, Swish, and Tikkie. A seamless, all-in-one app enhances overall user experience which raises the question of whether the Dutch P2P payment market still has room for more players.

The answer lies in a combination of social infrastructure, tradition, and the unique features of each digital product. When examining user experiences, Swish and MobilePay differ from Tikkie in key ways, largely influenced by their underlying infrastructure and level of cross-bank collaboration.
At their core, all three apps aim to make money transfers effortless, but their operational models define their competitive edge.

Why did MobilePay and Swish evolve into end-to-end payment systems, while Tikkie did not? This could be due to the way partnerships were structured and how they have evolved over time.

MobilePay and Swish have benefited from strong cross-bank collaboration, with a shared goal of developing a national payment solution. From the start, banks worked together to create a unified platform with a large user base and a seamless experience.

In contrast, the Dutch fintech landscape is more decentralized. Individual banking apps already play a dominant role in transactions, making banks the primary facilitators rather than a standalone P2P platform. Tikkie acts as a connector, enabling users to request and split payments while keeping banks central to transactions. Though less streamlined than MobilePay or Swish, the Dutch model serves a strategic purpose: ensuring banks remain at the heart of digital payments. By integrating P2P features, banks retain customer engagement and strengthen their app’s value, preventing users from migrating to third-party platforms.

The differences between the Nordic and Dutch payment models raise a key question in digital finance: Should banks unite under a single platform, or should they compete by integrating P2P features into their own systems?

With the decline of physical branches and face-to-face interactions, traditional banks are rethinking how they maintain customer relationships and loyalty. By integrating P2P features directly into their apps, they ensure that customers continue to engage with their brand, rather than migrating to a third-party platform, which may strengthen their own apps’ value proposition, respectively.

The future of platforms like MobilePay and Swish is uncertain as real-time payments are becoming a standard feature among Scandinavian banks. In Sweden, the Riksbank’s new system enables real-time payments across all banks. As P2P transactions become more widely available it could reduce the need for Swish. However, it remains unclear whether Swedish banks will fully adopt this feature.