Composable banking:
Dispelling the myths

The banking industry has undergone significant changes over the past decade, and it shows no signs of slowing down. As financial institutions seek to evolve to better meet the needs of their customers and keep ahead of the competition, more and more are turning to composable banking.

Senior leaders from Deloitte and Mambu sat down to explore five common myths of composable banking. This series of articles highlights some of the key points from this discussion.

Explore our composable banking series

Banking

Webinar - Apr 26, 2023

Composable Banking FAQs with Deloitte & Mambu

Leaders from Deloitte and Mambu dispel some of the common myths around composable banking and answer the most frequently asked questions from financial institutions across the globe.

Banking

Article - Mar 21, 2023

Composable banking myth #1: a one stop shop vendor is easier than composable

João Caldeira, Deloitte Global Digital Banking solutions leader, discusses the myths around composable banking. The first myth: it is easier and more effective to have a single vendor than a composable approach to the design and delivery of financial services.

Banking

Article - Mar 9, 2023

Composable banking myth #2: composable banking is more expensive than traditional, one-stop-shop solutions

In the next blog in our ‘5 myths about composable banking’ series, Nuno Alpendre, FS Business Consulting Lead at Deloitte, debunks the second myth: composable banking is more expensive than traditional, one-stop-shop solutions.

Banking

Article - Mar 23, 2023

Composable banking myth #3: composable banking is less reliable

In the next blog in our ‘5 myths about composable banking’ series, Miguel Amaro, Partner at Deloitte, debunks the third myth: composable banking is less reliable. An incorrect assumption of composable banking is that a single vendor will allow for more operational resilience and minimise risk.

Banking

Article - May 18, 2023

Composable banking myth #4: a composable architecture can pose higher delivery risk

Miguel Amaro, Partner at Deloitte, debunks the fourth myth: a composable architecture can pose higher delivery risk than single-vendor, monolithic architectures.

Banking

Article - Mar 28, 2023

Composable banking myth #5: differentiation requires customised code

In our final blog in this series, Deloitte’s Miguel Amaro explains how banks do not require customisation of their core banking solutions to maintain a competitive stance in the market and meet customer needs.

Banking

Article - Mar 21, 2023

Frequently asked questions with Deloitte & Mambu: composable banking

Deloitte & Mambu answer some of the most frequently asked questions from global financial institutions on composable banking. This is an edited transcript of the conversation.

Contact us to find out how Deloitte & Mambu can help you

Company name*

Type of Partner*

First name*

Last name*

Business email*

Job title*

Country*

Tell us which partner solution you are interested in.*

Yes, I would like to receive emails about Mambu products, services, and events. I can unsubscribe at any time.

By submitting this form, you confirm that you agree to the processing of your personal data by Mambu as described in the privacy policy. We may share your details with our partners to provide you with more information.

Composable banking: Dispelling the myths

Explore our composable banking series

Composable Banking FAQs with Deloitte & Mambu

Composable banking myth #1: a one stop shop vendor is easier than composable

Composable banking myth #2: composable banking is more expensive than traditional, one-stop-shop solutions

Composable banking myth #3: composable banking is less reliable

Composable banking myth #4: a composable architecture can pose higher delivery risk

Composable banking myth #5: differentiation requires customised code

Frequently asked questions with Deloitte & Mambu: composable banking

Contact us to find out how Deloitte & Mambu can help you

Composable banking:
Dispelling the myths