Mint sucks, so why aren't there any real competitors in that space? | Hacker News Reader

Mint sucks, so why aren't there any real competitors in that space?

antonpug.com

20 pointsantonpug58 comments

Note that this is just my gut opinion on it, imagining the nightmares I've seen in healthcare integration and contrasting that with what I see as an end user of Bank integration. I've not actually seen the business deals and effort in the backend as a developer in the latter case, but as an end user of Mint I've seen missing integrations that hint strongly at the difficulties they must experience.

I think the reason why is because it's a pretty large integration undertaking. To compete with Mint at this point, you'd have to offer similar levels of integration with banks, credit card companies, investment companies etc...

The problem is that there are literally tens of thousands of these companies, each exposing their own APIs and each with their own unique caveats as to data they require, throttling limits, back-room deals for access, hesitation to even let people access their systems etc.

For an anecdotal end-user example, I have an account with one provider who refuses to cooperate with Mint in integrating - ECSI. This is a small lending company for student loans, one of thousands of such companies. They decided for reasons that are not publicly available to not even allow Mint to integrate with them anymore, after having let them do so for the first couple of years. What sorts of negotiations were occurring in the back end between these companies, and what caused it to fall apart? The public doesn't know, but needless to say there was some level of custom integration effort for them, some level of business negotiation, and then finally something fell apart and made customers mad as a result. Now, all of this integration work and business negotiation had to happen between Mint and ECSI - and that is just one of the tens of thousands of companies out there. It is a very tall order to ask a new company to come forward and make that much upfront work in order to get on par with Mint so that it can start competing.

The real fight that would make more innovation in the field would probably have to start with getting companies to standardize and expose their APIs without (or with common and well understood) strings attached. If this happened - as has been struggling but slowly improving in the Healthcare field - it'll become more feasible for a company to realistically compete with Mint. And then you can get to those enhanced features that Mint suffers for want of. (however, at that point Mint's significant engineering force could be redirected from integration efforts to these same features, and then you'll find yourself fighting against a much larger machine now bent on feature improvement)

This is a huge factor. They started with Yodlee (basically a paid bank-scraper service with fees that might crush a small startup) and now Intuit has built something in-house.

I'd be interested to see what partnership companies like IGG, who builds the popular iBank for Mac, have pulled off to do this (http://www.iggsoftware.com/ibankforipad/direct_access.php).

Interesting! From that link, it sounds like they're paying a large sum of money to use someone else's integration solution. That could be an option - I wonder just how much money they are shelling out. (and whether Intuit is said integrator!)

It's hard. But it's possible, and there are significant earnings that could be realized in that space. I think that if hypothetical "BetterMint" offered excellent features and something truly innovative, people would be willing to pay for it.

I totally agree that it would be possible, but very difficult to get properly funded. I have to admit that I'm not sure that I'd pay for it either, unless it truly gave me something special that I couldn't already deduce myself from the kind of data Mint gives. I can't envision exactly what kind of feature would drive me to pay for it, but I don't doubt that there's something I'm not currently able to imagine that would motivate me as such.

At least some of these providers have API's now! Mint was probably screen-scraping for awhile, and they made it.

So in effect, by cornering the market and developing many layers of cruft internally to deal with the various APIS, they've effectively stopped technology advancement in the personal finance space. Meanwhile, quantum networks and computing is being rolled out to big institutional investors.

The only way for people to regain any semblance of control (and transparency) of their financial situation, there has to be an FOSS initiative to build these tools openly, and to keep them on a license that prevents huge financial institutions from coopting public commons software. The fact that Mint can't seem to tally a month is indicative of deeply failed architecture, probably governed by business instead of engineers. If that doesn't scare you, well, perhaps you are already in debt up to your eyeballs, and as they say, if I owe you $1,000 it's my problem, if I owe you $1,000,000 it's your problem.

There is NO WAY for a startup to tackle the problem and make meaningful advancements in any metric except maybe a nice zero-sum race with Mint. At least not that I can see. No one is going to fund a startup deving under GPL2 and no startup staying private with their technology will be able to out-compete Mint's headstart, because any advancement you have with the banks is Mint's for free. With a open technology is everyone's (including mints) and any advancement they make is also yours. You've effectively changed the game from managing information logistics/frameworks to customer support.

You are playing a high-level game when you write financial software for profit. The only way to win the game this old, is to not play inside its rules. FOSS. The quickest and most assured way to guarantee your failure would be to accept startup funds with any strings attached, because as soon as you do, you're now subject to the rules of the game.

It's not just that the APIs are hard to deal with. The problem is that I'd imagine that many of these financial institutions will only allow API access and implementation details under an NDA or some equally FOSS-incompatible legal constraint. You'd think that "it's just an API, how close-minded can they get?" The answer is very. I've dealt with these types of integrations before as part of a large corporation, and I've seen API documentation from a partner prefixed by 2 full pages of legalese regarding its use - and that doesn't include the separate document about data retention and caching restrictions. And it's even more of a pipe dream to think that any party could convince these institutions to simplify or standardize their APIs - the legal fees alone for them to make sure that everything's compatible with EACH company's practices/bylaws would probably strike fear into even the most generous donor. I love the FOSS mindset, but as an engineer I have to recognize that it's not the perfect approach for every domain.

The issue with banks like that is the complexity is lying outside their ability to enforce it, so they have to rely on government/law to enforce that complexity instead of software. Such banks move slowly. Are there any banks with open APIs? Yes, not many though, there probably aren't enough to start a network effect.

Just because some APIS are "hard" and exist outside of an electronic network, doesn't mean that they cannot be automated in software to some extent.

Makes me wonder if Obama is trying to automate the government and military so Laws and enforcement can be automated so inter-banking can be automated. Didn't follow our NDA and are using our API to lander cash? Automated drone missile at your IP interface.

I agree - though I don't know which solution would be better (standardization of industry APIs as I propose, or a FOSS project to build and maintain a system that could hit all of these systems).

I think a mix of both would be best, though both are also wrought with many more difficulties than we have gone into here. For example, just a couple that come up off the top of my head:

* API Standardization issues

- Many of these companies likely have custom sets of data that they expect, validation rules, their own auth procedures that they'd be hesitant to let go of etc... - Smaller companies (such as in my ECSI example) would likely shy away from the costs of creating such an API for their own services, thus still resulting in the need for custom solutions - Larger companies would also hesitate to change - either due to their own org/system complexity, or just a desire to not spend money on something that doesn't feel core to their business. Healthcare integration standardization is severely hampered by this, for example. - Many of these companies may actually be charging for access to their data backend, which would still thwart the use of standardized APIs even after they were adopted.

* FOSS System Issues

- To create the integrations, companies would have to actually both expose it to you and allow you access. The creators of the FOSS system would have to somehow convince these companies to essentially open up their systems to the world. That would be fantastic I think, but it would be very tough to convince companies. - You'd need a large number of dedicated people to the cause - and not just developers to create and maintain the integrations, but also people with the skills needed to negotiate with the businesses for whatever kinds of back-end deals have to occur to keep the integration online and functional on the financial institution's side. So far, we've been good at finding an army of excellent developers to drive FOSS - for this kind of integration pursuit, the FOSS movement would also need to be good at finding an army of excellent businessmen, lawyers, etc... that would be as dedicated and available as the software development force (I'd be all for such an expansion of scope in the Open Source movement) - The "charging for access" issue above would still be a problem here.

Now, none of these are reasons not to do it - merely a statement of risks and a peek into the scope and effort needed for such an approach. It's not something I'd ever have the time or energy to lead the charge on personally, but kudos to whoever could rally the army (and the political will) needed to make it happen.

I'm not really sure how charging for API access would break your ability to out-maneuver Mint. Technology moves faster than regulation so today regulation comes after power of technology. All a framework does is abstract way complexity, which makes the banks that fall under it subject to a more-pure market and its effects. Banks with premium services can compete on price while working on the same customer data easier. Access to extended data can be bidded on by banks for those willing to give up personal information for better services. I don't comprehend why the banks would need to "open up" anything, or even agree to standardize their API. The framework can be a sanity check on banks as well. (we deposited $100, only $95 is reported, flag., handle flag by docking bank "determinism ranking"), banks that don't rate highly as handling the framework calls in a deterministic manner are not officially supported and lose mainstream customers. Consumers can regain control of their personal information, bringing a new market for personal data that isn't owned by someone other than that person.

Mint didn't do anything to stop technology advancement. The thousands of companies Minte wants to connect with, all with their own unique snowflake systems, did that already.

I'm not sure how thousands of companies blazing their own trail is synonymous with stopping advancement.

With all the financial institutions using antiquated technologies, all with their own little twists, that won't work with anything else and barely work with the standards they themselves set up... yeah, that basically kills any project that would like to help an individual manage their financial portfolio. Well-specced and adhered to standards can be wonderful. Thousands of entities making it up as they go and not working with each other, not so much.

I've been a mint user for over 5 years and actually love it. The web ui isn't amazing, but it is pretty good. The IOS app is excellent and let's me quickly get a grip on my financials. I couldn't disagree more with the author of this post. I've often had mint send me alerts when I mix up something stupid and get low balances or forget to pay credit card bills. To me, mint is simply a life saver. It isn't something I use every day, but when I need it, it really helps. I'm about as big of a mint fanboi that there could be.

I agree. I use it for the same reasons. To give me a simple bird's eye view of my finances and to watch out for fraud.

It's even more helpful with my grandmother's finances. My grandfather had handled their finances all his life. After his death, I set up a Mint account for her and it has been invaluable in both its convenience and in helping me contain various crises: overdrafts, missed bills, fraud, bad spending habits. Unfortunately, when it comes to money, seniors are sitting targets.

Not to say there aren't things that could be improved. But it's a long way from suck.

I have to agree with you. I've been using it for years, ever since I started getting real amounts of money in my account. I only wish it would work with my 401k.

Just curious, how many accounts do you have linked to it?

Me? Perhaps 10 total between certificates of deposits, IRAs, my work 401k, a credit card, and some savings accounts, along with my regular "main" checking account.

It is really invaluable to figure out where I'm wasting money and can improve my spending habits.

I think actually the basic problem with Mint isn't those mentioned in the article (UI is meh, miscategorized transactions, data import customization).

It's actually as mentioned in Wesabe's postmortem (http://blog.precipice.org/why-wesabe-lost-to-mint/); for most people Mint doesn't actually get you to change your behavior. It just provides twentysomethings with some feeling that they're managing their finances, in return for getting pitched credit cards.

Harder and more worthwhile than UI or functionality fixes are changing twentysomethings' behavior, or doing something interesting for older people with more complicated financial situations. [Mint's useless for my parents, with multiple bank accounts, investments, retirement, education and health savings accounts, etc.]

One problem (and barrier to good competitors) are that aggregating finance data sucks. Mint started with Yodlee, which is nothing but a scraper for bank sites, and now runs on something Intuit built internally. It's hard to imagine many startups meaningfully tackling the problem.

> Mint doesn't actually get you to change your behavior...

Bingo! If you're spending more money than you should, it does you no good to see colorful graphs indicating you spent too much. If you get budget alerts but still blow through your budget, it really does you no good. Maybe it even makes you more resolute in your careless spending.

This isn't a direct answer to the stated question, but personally I use Mint just to keep watch on my transactions and You Need A Budget (www.youneedabudget.com) to budget and plan future transactions.

YNAB doesn't connect to any of your accounts. You have to enter in transactions manually. That limits its audience and makes it not really a direct competitor to Mint. But I find manually entering your past transactions really, really forces you to think about how you're spending money.

I started using YNAB in May of this year, and I can say without exaggeration that is has changed my life. Great method, instruction, and support.

I have personally convinced several other people to start using it, and happily evangelize the product whenever the topic of personal finance or budgeting comes up.

Also, with all the focus on web apps, it is interesting to see (and use) software that is sold as a proper download.

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I loved Microsoft Money. Yes, it was bloated and had tons of features I'd never use, but it did everything I needed it to. My biggest issue with Mint is the lack of proper Bill Payments. I don't necessarily need to be able to pay bills from Mint, but when it tells me a bill is due tomorrow and I don't pay it tomorrow, I want it to keep telling me it's past due until I mark it as reconciled or something of that nature. Instead, Mint just assumes I pay everything on time and stops reminding me. There again, perhaps I'm in the minority, but I'd imagine it's a pretty large minority in this economy that doesn't always have the luxury of paying everything right when it's due. I know they're more geared towards analyzing what you've spent, but I wish they'd consider adding more features outside of that specialization.

Mint was the competitor. Then Intuit (Quicken) bought them.

I think Simple would get a lot more attention then they are getting if they offered a paid service for people who wanted to link their accounts and use their platform as a money tracking tool.

Have been using it for 3 years and the occasional problems pale in comparison to the utility I've gotten from it. Have recommended it and set it up for less tech savvy family members.

Simple on the other hand is pretty useless to me. The rates are awful and it's just a nice looking app - really don't get it. But suppose I don't fit the use case they pivoted to before launch since I don't set budgets and more just keep tabs on when money comes in or out. Will probably end up closing my account there but your idea of becoming more like Mint (linking accounts) could make it useful.

Or if simple had any competitive advantage; UX isn't enough. Yes they are a simple to use online bank but the their rates are pretty much non-existent.

I agree. Hence why I didn't join them. I told them I'd sign up if I could get Ally-like rates, or if they offered a credit card option with 5% cash back categories like the competitors.

Every budgeting application is going to have some problems with missed or incorrect data. And they've been consistently working on improving their connections with most of the major banks.

The other stuff that the author talks about are simple website changes that the Mint team could make if he just send them suggestions and ideas for improvement. I don't think they're anything serious that would warrant the claim that Mint 'sucks'.

There is serious feature deficiency going on there. If you look at support and feature forums, there are basic features that users have been asking for years, that are still not implemented. Connection and sync issues aside, Mint's math isn't always right either. I don't think Mint is completely useless, nonetheless, it sucks compared to what customers expect. Simple appears to have much more robust budgeting tools - too bad they are stuck with their "use our debit card crap"

I would say that I found Mint pretty close to useless. I was an early user and there wasn't much good that I got out of it. I have to give it some credit though, because just putting some effort in really helped me get control of my finances at a time when I was really bad at it.

I can say the same for YNAB, which I've bought and since stopped using. I simply don't need it, but it's nice to know that I have it if I ever do. I actually think YNAB's model where you don't get to automatically sync your accounts works better at its goal. These days I have an excellent mental model of my finances at any given time. Eliminating debt plays a huge part in that.

Mint got me to think about my cashflow in a way that motivated me to eliminate the burden of debt from my life. YNAB got me to think about my cashflow in a way that motivated me to control unnecessary spending and use short-term debt where appropriate. It probably could have done what Mint did too, but I was already at that point when I started using it.

I had similar experiences. The real value for a lot of folks would be to develop the proper mindset and decision making process for everyday spending.

I have a hobby project (http://www.spendlight.com/) that's growing out of my own household's efforts to get on the same page with our mental model of our finances. The charts in Mint or the wall of numbers coming out of a typical bank statement wasn't directly helpful for my wife and I to truly coordinate our spending and reach a consensus on what expenses were good vs bad. The more we've focused on our decisions rather than the mere dollars and sense, the more progress we've made in becoming responsible spenders.

Anyhow, I'd love to get more insights from folks such as yourself who were able to get their finances under control. I think a tool that accounts the behavioral realities of our spending habits would have substantial value for at least a handful of folks. Agree? Disagree?

I agree. Life is a bit simpler for me being single and not having big recurring expenses (my only monthly bills are rent, phone, car insurance - and I'm getting rid of the car).

I think a tool to show behavior patterns in spending would be immensely helpful. I typically spent very differently when money was tight vs when my credit balances were at $0. It took me a few cycles before realizing that as soon as I had a couple grand in my pocket I'd make some big ticket purchase that wasn't always necessary. In fact, I'm fighting off the urge to buy a new rMBP right now! hah.

I think what you're talking about is a problem that nobody has even attempted to solve yet. I normally spend about $75 /yr on "financial tools" (usually credit reports, fico scores, etc), so yes, I would be willing to spend money on something like that if it were good and could learn & show my patterns over time.

Heck, if it sat watching my browser history and would ask me if I really wanted to buy X when I'm spending too much time looking at it on Amazon, that'd be killer! lol

I'll check it out! Looks pretty good. I'll let you know wha tI think.

Thanks. You can reach my gmail directly at david.larsen.

I use Mint moreso for visual organization of sorts. I don't have any debt and pay everything on time regardless of Mint, but it's nice to have a visual representing all your spending, trends etc.

That's basically what I used it for as well, but the constant bugs and worries about the potential of a data breach with software connected to my checking accounts got me to stop using it.

My issue with Mint is that it is an OK budgeting/finance tracking app, but not too good with debt payoff. If I could use the integration of accounts (with all the interest and what not) and be able to show when interest is added to a loan or how long it would take to pay off (all automatically) would be nice. Yes I know I can do it myself (and do) but why have two+ apps/systems to do what one can do?

I'm actually juggling between Mint and ReadyForZero for this exact reason. It's not ideal but it's the best I have come up with for now.

Same here. ReadyForZero works for somethings, Mint works for others. Can't one of them buy the other out?

There is some noteworthy competition to Mint. I don't have any experience with these, but they seem promising.

Level - https://levelmoney.com/

22seven - https://www.22seven.com/

There are likely others, but I just rarely hear about money management apps.

For people like me who want a mint with _fewer_ features level looks pretty good. Unfortunately I can't just enter data myself, they want to connect to a bank. Good luck getting my German bank on board with that.

Not to mention both are not on Android.

Never seen these! They look good at first sight, I'll be checking them out. Thanks.

Also check out http://pocketsmith.com/ it has forecasting to tell you what you'll have in future months.

I think people want a quicken like tool that will track all their finances...budgeting, tracking and stocks. mint never did that and users were spammed with too many ads.

It's a hard thing to do. Intuit should had never bought mint and kept working on its online offering of quicken. Now the only thing that's any good is the desktop version of quicken.

Yodlee gave them their initial connections and I assume many of them were built as one-offs afterwards.

I'm looking forward to seeing what companies like Standard Treasury (http://standardtreasury.com/) can do to modernize this area.

Better security because Intuit is a larger company? No one is invincible, see Adobe's latest incident. My major complaint with Mint is I don't get email alerts until I log into my account. Nothing gets sent to me when the event triggering the alert occurs. That is frustrating.

Well, arguably, if I see some startup that just started doing business, I don't think I would feel as secure with them as I do with Mint - but like I said, "arguably".

The irony of this is that Mint was once a startup that simply asked you to trust them with your bank account's credentials (or at least that was my impression). I joined them way before they were owned by Intuit.

I don't believe that's the case. Alerts will still be sent without logging in. It's just that the automated checks only happen with a certain frequency, daily or so. If you log in after an alert-worthy event happens but before the automated check, you'll trigger an alert e-mail because that's when it sees the event. If you're logging in a lot, it might look like they only happen when you log in.

I don't love Mint but I would never say it "sucks". Also, it is a pretty difficult category. Being able to safeguard the data and credentials alone severely limits the universe of people/groups who might try to do it.

I use this - https://www.personalcapital.com/ - it is Mint minus all the ads and let's you add private equity and custom vesting periods

I don't like the UI. Also it feels investment-centric and I a lot of people just need a simple, beautiful and robust app that lets them see their transactions, budgets, set goals etc. Personal capital isn't horrid, but I feel like it's too much investment stuff that many don't need.

I would like something like Mint that comes with a consumable personal API that is safe to call. I want to generate my own reports, but I certainly don't want to handle banking-level security.

Because it's a boring problem to solve?

Eh, but aren't they all? Fitness tracking solutions, weather information, feed aggregators, photo apps - are they more "exciting" problems to solve? It's a matter of perspective - to someone, making a nice photo app is boring, to someone else, financial problems are irrelevant.

Wave is much better than Mint for business.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com