Apideck vs Unified.to: which unified API is right for your product in 2026?

May 29, 2025

Apideck and Unified.to are the closest match in the unified API category. Both route each request to the source API rather than caching your customers' business records, and both carry comparable unified object models, so the decision is not architectural. The architecture trade-offs between routed and cached unified APIs are covered separately, and they separate this pair from vendors like Merge rather than from each other.

Two requirements settle it outright. If you need bank feeds written into the ledger, only Apideck offers them. If you need US or APAC data residency, only Unified.to offers it, and no Apideck tier changes that. If neither applies, the decision is a weighting: Apideck for an embedded integrations marketplace and accounting depth, Unified.to for category breadth on one plan, faster change detection and a larger managed MCP surface.

All figures below were checked against both vendors' published documentation on 6 August 2026.

How do Apideck and Unified.to compare?

What does Apideck do well?

A deliberate accounting bet, executed. Since August 2025 Apideck has concentrated on accounting, and their surface reflects it. Their homepage leads with the accounting API, they publish per-integration accounting pages at volume, and accounting accounts for 143 of the roughly 330 tools in their MCP repository README, about 43 per cent of that surface. Bank feeds, multi-entity scoping and line-level tracking dimensions are all accounting-shaped investments shipped in the last year. If your product lives in the general ledger, this is a vendor pointing at you.

Vault as an embedded marketplace product. Vault is a distinct product layer providing hosted or embeddable connection UX, OAuth handling, an integrations directory, and a field-mapping UI for end customers. Vault JS, React Vault and Vue Vault drop into your application, and Hosted Vault provides a redirect-based flow. If your product treats integrations as a customer-facing surface rather than an in-product capability, this is the clearest reason to choose Apideck.

Accounting objects that render in one call. Apideck's accounting model embeds the display label beside each foreign key. Their Invoice carries customer as an object with display_name and company_name, line_items inline, payment_allocations, and tracking_categories with both name and parent_name. A LinkedLedgerAccount carries the account name and code, a LinkedTaxRate carries the rate. An invoice with its customer name, applied payment and dimension names renders in a single request. Unified.to returns contact_id, category_ids, account_id and taxrate_id as bare references, so the same render takes additional lookups. If you are building an AP or AR interface, read both schemas before deciding.

Bank feeds written into the ledger. Apideck ships bank feed accounts and bank feed statements with full CRUD, writing bank statements into the accounting platform rather than reading bank data out of it. Their homepage marks the feature as covering 9 ledgers and in beta as of August 2026, extended to Sage Intacct in March 2026 and NetSuite in April 2026. Unified.to does not offer this at all. If bank feeds are the requirement, the comparison ends here.

Escape hatches on every plan. The Proxy API reaches non-unified endpoints and is included from the $599 tier, where Unified.to's Passthrough API starts at $750. Their pass_through write extension accepts JSONPath expressions, which is more expressive than a flat object. Note their own framing of raw: the spec describes it as mostly for debugging rather than production reads.

Open-source MCP server. Apideck publishes its MCP server under MIT licence, self-hostable from npm or GitHub, with a managed endpoint at mcp.apideck.dev. Three operational modes: dynamic, which is the default and token-efficient, static, and code for programmatic endpoint calling. If you want to control the MCP runtime yourself, Apideck's approach is genuinely useful and Unified.to has no equivalent.

Two smaller things. An x-apideck-company-id header scopes reads to a legal entity on connectors that support multiple companies, and line items carry their own department_id, location_id and tracking_categories that override header-level values, which matters when one document splits costs across teams. And reviews consistently highlight responsive, hands-on support and willingness to add integrations or endpoints on request.

Where does each platform host your data?

Apideck hosts in the EU only and does not offer region selection. As of August 2026 their own comparison page lists hosting regions as EU and region selection as No. Their subprocessor list, updated 1 January 2026, records AWS infrastructure in the EU. Their accounting API reference publishes static IP addresses for EU Central 1 only, with other regions marked upcoming.

A product with a US or APAC data-residency requirement cannot meet it on Apideck at any tier, including Enterprise.

Unified.to operates in the US, EU and AU. Region selection and data region sync are included on Pro and Scale. Restricted IP addresses are available on the same tiers.

This is the single sharpest difference between the two and it is checkable on both sides in about a minute.

Which one covers more integrations?

Unified.to covers more: 675 integrations across 32 categories against Apideck's 171 counted from their own per-category pages. The larger difference is access, because Unified.to includes every category on every plan and Apideck gates categories by tier.

Apideck's integrations page headlines 200+ integrations through 7 Unified APIs. That figure does not reconcile with their own per-category pages, which sum to 171: Accounting 50+, HRIS 58+, CRM 21+, Ecommerce 17+, ATS 11+, Issue Tracking 9+, File Storage 5+. Their developer docs list 10 unified APIs as live, adding Lead, SMS and POS, plus 14 more in auth-only status. The POS connectors page renders no connectors and no count, and ERP is a marketing surface over the Accounting API rather than a separately documented one.

What do you get on each plan?

Apideck includes one unified API category on its $599 entry tier and three at $1,299. Unified.to includes all 32 categories on every plan, from $750.

Two further capabilities sit behind Apideck's Scale tier. Custom Field Mapping, which lets end customers map integration-specific custom fields into your unified response, is Scale and above, as is Data Scopes, their field-level access control. Full white-label Vault, with Apideck branding removed rather than merely recoloured, is Enterprise.

Unified.to's Metadata API is included on every plan. As of August 2026 it is live on 37 platforms across CRM, ATS, HRIS, Commerce and Ticketing, and is not yet available on accounting integrations.

How often does each one detect changes?

Unified.to detects changes on a minimum one-minute interval on paid plans. Apideck's documented default is typically every 24 hours, adjustable by pricing plan. Where an integration publishes native webhooks both platforms use them, so the gap only opens where it does not.

Apideck's help documentation states that virtual webhooks monitor enabled resources at regular intervals, typically every 24 hours, adjustable by pricing plan. Each cycle retrieves all items for a resource and compares them to detect changes, paginated at roughly 200 items a page with a one to two minute delay between pages to avoid rate limiting. The cadence follows from the mechanism: a full scan of a large customer's contact list is a long walk before anything surfaces.

Unified.to publishes a minimum interval of one minute on paid plans. Billing is on API calls, and a check that finds no change is not billed, so what you set the interval to is not governed by what each check costs.

If your product needs to know about a change within the hour, this is the row that decides it.

Which one works better with AI agents?

Apideck is better if you want to run the MCP server yourself; Unified.to is better if you want reach. Theirs is MIT-licensed and self-hostable across 5 unified APIs, ours is managed and multi-region across 675 integrations.

Apideck's is MIT-licensed and self-hostable, with a managed endpoint at mcp.apideck.dev. Their developer docs navigation labels it beta as of August 2026. It fronts 5 unified APIs: CRM, Accounting, HRIS, ATS and File Storage. Their published tool counts do not agree with each other: 229 tools across 5 unified APIs in the developer docs and llms.txt, roughly 330 across 10 in the GitHub README, and 360+ on the marketing page. Accounting is 143 of the README figure, the largest single category, which is consistent with where they have concentrated.

Unified.to's MCP server is managed rather than self-hosted, with multi-region endpoints in the US, EU and AU. It exposes 8,242 unified tools as of August 2026, or 43,456 including vendor-native tools, which are off by default and enabled with a single parameter when an agent needs something the unified model does not cover. A defer_tools server option defers tool loading to reduce context usage, per tool or across the whole set. Access is scoped: a connection-scoped signed token grants an agent one connection and nothing else, a permissions list narrows which tools appear, and hide_sensitive strips PII fields before results reach the model.

The trade is control against reach. Self-hosting an MIT-licensed server is something Unified.to does not offer. A managed multi-region surface across 675 integrations is something Apideck does not offer.

How do the developer experiences compare?

Two things worth reading the specs for rather than taking either vendor's word on. Apideck embeds display labels beside foreign keys, which means fewer calls to render a finance document. Unified.to returns attachments inline on the invoice, bill, expense, credit memo and journal objects, where Apideck requires a separate endpoint and a further download call. Both specs are public.

One caveat that applies to both vendors and to every object-model comparison. A schema is a contract, not coverage. A field existing in the spec says nothing about how many integrations return it populated, and on the Unified.to side the honest numbers are narrow: payment-to-invoice linkage on 5 accounting integrations of 105, the payment terms enum on 12. Check the specific ledgers your product reads against each vendor's per-integration documentation rather than against either schema.

How do the two compare on security and compliance?

The differences show up at the enterprise-readiness layer. SAML SSO arrives at $1,500 a month on Unified.to and appears to require an Enterprise contract on Apideck. Hosting region is the one that cannot be resolved by paying more.

What does each one cost?

Apideck starts at $599 a month for 25 consumers and one category; Unified.to starts at $750 a month for 750,000 API calls and all 32 categories. Past the entry tier the two models diverge rather than converge, because one bills on how many of your customers have connected and the other on how much you call.

Apideck Launch, $599 per month: 25 consumers, 1 unified API category, Vault with a customisable UI that retains Apideck branding, business hours support. A 30-day free trial is available.

Apideck Scale, $1,299 per month: 100 consumers, 3 unified API categories, Custom Field Mapping, field-level access control in Early Access, business hours support.

Apideck Enterprise, custom: unlimited consumers, unlimited categories, white-label Vault with branding removed, SSO, configurable log retention, Enterprise SLA.

Unified.to Grow, $750 per month: 750,000 API calls, all 32 categories, unlimited customer connections, 60-day log retention, private Slack or Discord with a 2-hour business-hours response.

Unified.to Pro, $1,500 per month: 2 million API calls, all 32 categories, SAML SSO, Secrets Manager key storage, restricted IP addresses, data region sync, Datadog log forwarding.

Unified.to Scale, $3,000 per month: 6 million API calls, all 32 categories, HIPAA BAA, 365+ day log retention, 1-hour business-hours response and 12 hours outside them.

Unified.to Enterprise, custom: all 32 categories, single tenant, private cloud, dedicated cloud or on-prem deployment.

The models differ in what drives the bill. Apideck prices on consumers, so cost tracks how many of your customers have connected something. Unified.to prices on API calls, with connections and customers unlimited on every tier. If you want integrations in front of free-tier users, that difference compounds, and the general case is worked through in usage-based versus per-connection pricing for integrations.

Customer spotlight: Interstellar Labs

Interstellar Labs builds AI agents for mid-market and enterprise companies, making API calls across many SaaS integrations. As they moved upmarket, integrations became a blocker: every enterprise demo hit the same wall about Greenhouse, or NetSuite rather than QuickBooks, or a sales team on Pipedrive.

With two engineers building integrations in-house, ten weeks produced two integrations, Salesforce and Slack, both already showing maintenance cracks. A Fortune 500 telecom prospect required 50 different integrations during the pilot.

In three months Interstellar Labs went from two hand-built integrations to offering 300 or more out of the box, through one integration with Unified.to. The catalogue stands at 675 as of August 2026. Their team connected the Python SDK to their Agent Development Kit, giving their agents access to every supported integration across CRM, ATS, accounting and messaging.

You know what is the best thing about Unified.to? It's boring. Like it just works and I can focus on actually building my stuff.

Faisal Abid, CTO, Interstellar Labs

Their use case spans four categories at once for agents that act across them. Multi-category coverage on a single plan and a managed MCP runtime were the fit, rather than any single pricing line.

When should you choose Apideck?

Start here: do you need bank feeds? Apideck writes bank statements into the ledger across 9 platforms, in beta as of August 2026. Unified.to does not offer this and does not intend to, because it is a partnership process rather than an engineering one. If your product needs it, nothing below matters.

Otherwise, four reasons, in the order they usually decide:

An embedded integrations marketplace is your product surface. Vault is a distinct product with a hosted or embedded connection UX, an integrations directory and a field-mapping UI for end customers. Unified.to has embedded auth components and no equivalent marketplace product. If your customers browse and manage their own integrations inside your app, this is the clearest reason to choose Apideck.

You live in the general ledger and call count matters. Their accounting objects embed the display label beside each foreign key, so an invoice with its customer name, applied payment and dimension names renders in one request where Unified.to needs additional lookups. Combined with bank feeds, multi-entity scoping and line-level tracking dimensions, this is a vendor that has spent a year building for accounting products specifically.

Your needs fit inside one to three categories. The tier structure only bites if you span more. At one category and low volume, Launch at $599 is below Unified.to's $750 entry.

You want to control the MCP runtime. MIT-licensed and self-hostable is not something Unified.to offers at all.

When should you choose Unified.to?

Start here: where does your data have to sit? Apideck hosts in the EU only and lists region selection as No. A US or APAC residency requirement cannot be met on Apideck at any tier, including Enterprise. This is the one difference no budget resolves, and it is checkable on their own comparison page in a minute.

Otherwise, six reasons, in the order they usually decide:

Coverage, and access to it. More integrations across more categories, and every category included on every plan rather than one on the entry tier and three at the next.

Changes need to surface faster than daily, and land where you want them. A one-minute minimum against a documented 24-hour default, with empty checks unbilled. Database Sync then writes those records into your own database as they change, where Apideck expects you to build ingestion.

Your AI surface needs reach rather than control. 8,242 unified tools across 675 integrations, managed in three regions, with connection-scoped tokens, a permissions list that narrows the tool set and PII stripped before results reach the model.

You are switching vendors and do not want to re-authorize every customer. Self-serve credential import has been documented since October 2024, so existing OAuth tokens move across without sending your customers back through a consent screen. Apideck's equivalent is available on request, and on a book of a few hundred connected accounts that is the difference between a migration and a re-onboarding campaign.

Your bill should track usage, not customer count. Apideck prices on consumers; Unified.to prices on API calls with connections and customers unlimited. Per-connection pricing is pricing electricity by the bulb: you do not pay more because you installed more fixtures, you pay for what you draw.

Enterprise controls without an Enterprise contract. SAML SSO, Secrets Manager key storage, restricted IP addresses and data region sync all arrive at $1,500 a month on Pro, where Apideck's SSO appears to require a custom Enterprise negotiation.

When does the choice not matter much?

If your product sits in one or two categories, your customers are comfortable with EU hosting, you do not need bank feeds, and a daily change cycle is acceptable, both platforms will do the job and the decision comes down to price and whether Vault fits your product surface. That is a real segment, and neither vendor's comparison page will tell you so.

Frequently asked questions

Can I use both Apideck and Unified.to?

Yes, and for some products it is the right answer. Bank feeds have no equivalent outside Apideck, so a product that needs them and also needs US hosting or categories beyond accounting can run Apideck for the bank feed path and a broader integration layer for the rest. It is two contracts and two sets of credentials, so it is worth pricing before committing.

Does Apideck offer MCP for AI agents?

Yes, under MIT licence, hosted at mcp.apideck.dev and self-hostable from npm or GitHub, labelled beta in their developer docs as of August 2026. It fronts 5 unified APIs with 229 tools per their documentation, though their README and marketing page give higher figures. Unified MCP is managed rather than self-hosted, with multi-region endpoints and 8,242 unified tools. The choice is between controlling the runtime and reaching more integrations.

Which is cheaper?

For a single category at low volume, Apideck Launch at $599 is below Unified.to Grow at $750. For two or more categories, Apideck's entry point becomes Scale at $1,299 while Unified.to's Grow at $750 includes all 32. Past that the models diverge rather than converge, because Apideck bills on consumers and Unified.to bills on API calls.

Does Apideck store customer data?

Not the business records. Both vendors persist OAuth tokens and API keys, connection metadata and encrypted operational logs. Apideck does not document a customer-managed key option; Unified.to includes Secrets Manager key storage on Pro and Scale.

Does Apideck publish a canonical integration count?

Yes, and it does not reconcile. Their integrations page headlines 200+ through 7 Unified APIs, while their per-category pages sum to 171. Unified.to publishes 675 across 32 categories.

Which delivery method should I use for which job?

Direct API calls where you need a current answer at the point of decision, webhooks for ongoing change delivery, and Database Sync where you want an indexed copy in your own database. Apideck offers the first two.

Related reading: Architecture trade-offs: routed versus cached unified APIs · Merge vs Unified.to · Kombo vs Unified.to · Truto vs Unified.to · Knit vs Unified.to · Top Merge.dev alternatives in 2026 · Usage-based versus per-connection pricing

Sources: apideck.com, developers.apideck.com, help.apideck.com, compliance.apideck.com, github.com/apideck-libraries and Apideck's changelog; Unified.to documentation and pricing page. All checked 6 August 2026.