The question comes up in every migration project to Odoo. A client about to switch ERPs almost systematically arrives with an already settled conviction: replicate exactly the bank connection of their old system. If it ran on EBICS, the initial request is to redeploy EBICS on Odoo, without questioning the real need.
Nine times out of ten, this reflex leads to needless over-investment in time and money. At ANOR, the comparison between EBICS and a standard bank aggregator is one of the first questions asked during the scoping phase, even before addressing the technical configuration. This article details the two options, their real mechanisms and the criteria that should guide the choice.
The standard bank aggregator: simplicity and speed of implementation
A bank aggregator, such as Ponto, Salt Edge, Plaid or Yodlee, is a third-party service that queries the bank on the company's behalf and returns the statements directly into Odoo. These providers are offered natively by Odoo depending on the geographic area of the bank concerned.
Implementation is fast: configuration takes a few minutes, with no administrative procedure with the bank, for a cost of a few euros per month per account. For an SME whose need is limited to viewing its accounts and automating bank reconciliation, this solution covers the entire functional scope.
What most clients do not know, however, is that some aggregators no longer limit themselves to retrieving statements. This is the case of Ponto.
Ponto and payment initiation: a widely underestimated capability
Since Odoo 18, the Account Online Payment module (account_online_payment) makes it possible, once Ponto is connected and SEPA Credit Transfer payment is enabled on the bank journal, to confirm a vendor payment directly from Odoo and send it to the bank without generating or uploading any file.
Technically, Ponto acts here as a PISP, Payment Initiation Service Provider within the meaning of the European PSD2 directive. The transfer order goes directly from the Odoo interface to the bank, without an intermediate XML file step to download and then upload to the bank portal.
This feature substantially changes the comparison with EBICS. Historically, the argument in favor of EBICS rested on fully automated payment, while the standard aggregator was limited to generating a SEPA file that the user then had to upload manually to the online banking interface, as confirmed by the official Odoo documentation up to and including version 19 for the classic SEPA flow. With Ponto in payment initiation mode, this manual step disappears, without going through EBICS.
EBICS: the direct link, with no intermediary
EBICS (Electronic Banking Internet Communication Standard) remains a direct connection between Odoo and the bank, with no third-party provider between the two systems.
Its implementation is significantly heavier than that of an aggregator:
- certificates must be generated and signed,
- approval must be obtained from each connected banking institution,
- the time to go live is counted in weeks rather than minutes.
The Noviat module is the reference in this area. Mature and proven on many production instances, it handles both retrieving statements and issuing signed batch transfers directly from Odoo.
In a context where Ponto now offers payment initiation, EBICS's added value no longer lies in automation as such. It shifts to three more specific criteria:
Universal bank coverage. EBICS works with any institution compatible with the standard, regardless of the commercial agreements an aggregator may or may not have reached with a given bank. An aggregator remains dependent on the list of institutions it has integrated.
Independence from a third-party provider. EBICS establishes a direct link between the company and its bank, without depending on the availability, pricing or longevity of an intermediary service.
Robustness at very high, recurring volumes. For a trader or a multi-company group that issues several hundred transfers per week to many different banks, the stability and maturity of a well-run EBICS link retain real value.
The real selection criterion
The choice between a standard aggregator and EBICS should not rest on a perception of seriousness or on carrying over the existing setup. Three questions should structure the decision:
- How many transfers does the company issue each week, and to how many distinct banks?
- Is the company's bank covered by an aggregator offering payment initiation, such as Ponto?
- Does the company have its own requirement of total independence from a third-party provider, for example for internal compliance reasons or information system security policy?
A craftsperson who paid three suppliers a month on their old system needs nothing more than an aggregator, even if they previously had EBICS. A trader who pays fifty suppliers every week can, if their bank is covered by an aggregator in payment initiation, automate most of their process without EBICS. EBICS only becomes truly unavoidable if the aggregator's coverage does not follow or if independence from a third party is a requirement in itself.
Conclusion
Replicating a legacy banking architecture exactly, without asking whether it still matches the real need, amounts to carrying a constraint from the past into a new system. At ANOR, the approach is to question the entire payment process before migrating any component, rather than duplicating by reflex what existed before.
The good news, with Odoo's recent evolution and the arrival of payment initiation through aggregators like Ponto, is that fully automating the vendor payments process no longer systematically requires going through EBICS. The bank solution should be sized against the company's real volume, not the inertia of its old system.