nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Connectivity Gaps with Modern Financial Institutions – Is Quicken’s Aggregation Strategy Evolving?

xriley75

I’ve been a Quicken power user for over 15 years, and my subscription renewed January 11. Over time, I’ve experienced a steady decline in connectivity reliability with several major financial institutions.

Currently unsupported or non-functional for me:

Marcus (recently dropped)
Empower (retirement account not updating)
Apple Card
Apple Savings
OnePay

These are not niche providers — they are mainstream institutions.

For context: I work in banking software and have direct experience integrating with aggregation providers such as Plaid and Finicity. I’m familiar with OFX, tokenized API access models, and the commercial realities behind data-sharing agreements. I understand that banks ultimately control access. However, competitors such as Monarch Money and Copilot successfully connect to these institutions using modern aggregation networks (Plaid, Finicity, MX, etc.), which suggests this is not simply a “bank refuses access” issue but a difference in aggregation strategy or partnership coverage.

Additionally, even manual import is increasingly problematic. Many institutions now only provide standard CSV exports. Quicken’s import options are extremely limited — in practice, the only broadly usable format is the legacy Mint-style CSV import. That requires significant manual reformatting and transformation work just to load basic transaction data. Banks often no longer provide QFX/OFX files compatible with Quicken, so even fallback workflows are becoming harder to maintain.

From a customer standpoint, the implementation details are secondary. Reliable connectivity and flexible import support are core value propositions. Right now I’m spending more time repairing feeds and transforming CSV files than actually using Quicken for financial management.

So my questions are:

Is Quicken actively pursuing expanded support for these modern fintech institutions?
Has Quicken’s aggregation strategy evolved to incorporate broader third-party aggregators where legacy connections are being deprecated?
Are there plans to modernize CSV import capabilities to support more flexible field mapping rather than relying on a narrow legacy format?
How is Quicken adapting as financial institutions move away from older Direct Connect / proprietary pathways toward tokenized API-based models?

This is not a troubleshooting request — it’s a product direction question.

As someone with nearly 20 years of historical data invested in the platform, clarity around Quicken’s connectivity and import roadmap is critical in determining whether to continue long-term.

I would appreciate input from someone who can speak to product and aggregation strategy rather than individual support cases.

Find more posts tagged with

Online Banking

File Import

Accounts

download transactions

OLB

Comments

jacobs

@xriley75 Those are fair questions to be wondering about as a longtime Quicken user. Unfortunately, I have never seen a Quicken executive above the level of a product manager post on this forum, and I have never seen anyone share long-term product strategy here.

As you likely know, Quicken was the original product at the founding of Intuit some 43 years ago, but grew to be an ever-smaller and more niche piece of the company after the turn of the century, suffering from benign neglect, until it was sold off in 2016. But the stand-alone Quicken company was still tightly tied to Intuit's connectivity processes, and the code in Quicken's legacy and newer products are built around it. It might be possible to yank out Intuit connectivity to replace it with Plaid or another aggregation partner, but I suspect that would be a massive undertaking (especially with parts of the Quicken Windows code that date back 3+ decades, and even Quicken Mac's connectivity code approaching 20 years old. But even if Quicken is quietly working on a strategy to switch away from Intuit for connectivity, I just cannot imagine that being discussed publicly until that was a done deal and they're ready to launch the new direction.

That's mostly about your first and second questions. Your last question is how Quicken is adapting as financial institutions move away from older Direct Connect, I think we have been watching that process over the past few years. Quicken developed the back-end systems to handle the newer FDX/OAuth API token-driven API, and more and more financial institutions have made the change. Some have had little o no announcement or fanfare, and have worked pretty much seamlessly. My bank is an example: I was told to follow a process to login via the bank's website, and within minutes, I was smoothly up and running on the new connectivity. And we've also seen financial institutions stumble badly due to errors in design, coding and/or testing; Fidelity's woes since the fall are the most recent large-scale example of that. But the answer to your question is that Quicken has adapted to support the change to FDX.

Your third question is the one it might be possible for a product manager to comment on if they are so inclined. Quicken Mac has long had a very limited CSV import — going back to the start of the modern Quicken Mac in 2014 — which was built to provide a migration path for people interested in switching from Mint.com. That limited import benefited Quicken because it brought in new customers. Only in the past year did Quicken officially embrace CSV import as a documented, supported method of data import — but they didn't expend any development effort to make it more flexible, more user-friendly, more broadly usable. (Heck, they didn't even both the take the Mint name off the menu command for CSV imports, even though Mint shut down two years ago.) There certainly is the potential for them to create a field-mapping UI to make it easier for users who want/need to import CSV data. But I don't know if they want to, since many users could really mess up their data by mangling CSV imports, and then complain to Quicken Support to fix their problems. Again, I'm doubtful anyone from Quicken management will talk about their future plans for this, simply because they don't talk about their future plans for any features.

(and to be clear, I'd love to be proven wrong if some senior Quicken employee posts here to address your questions about their future directions! 😀)

Chris_QPW

As @jacobs said I have never seen Quicken Inc (or Intuit before them) ever post about future development plans, so this just my opinion. Even though Intuit sold off Quicken, Quicken is still joined at the hip with Intuit as far as they are their aggregator. As such it is much more about what Intuit is willing to support than Quicken Inc, with the exception of CSV as @jacobs pointed out.

And I will state one more thing, NONE of the aggregators support all the financial institutions. So, when someone says well "this program/aggregator supports this financial institution" it might sound like that one has better coverage of all the financial institutions, but unless the program is using multiple aggregators that just isn't the case.

xriley75

Just to clarify, I am not suggesting Quicken replace its current aggregation provider. I am suggesting architectural resilience through optional multi-aggregator support.

If a single aggregation pathway loses coverage for an institution, customers currently have no fallback. Other fintech platforms mitigate this risk by abstracting multiple aggregation networks behind a normalization layer. That is not theoretical. It is standard practice in modern financial data stacks.

Fallback mechanisms are common and widely practiced in resilient system design. As an engineer, I build this pattern into everything I design. Reducing single-path dependency risk is foundational to maintaining reliability as external systems evolve.

Banks are indeed deprecating legacy OFX and Direct Connect pathways. That trend actually strengthens the case for diversified API-based aggregation rather than weakening it. As institutions shift toward tokenized access models, reliance on a single connectivity strategy increases fragility.

There may be contractual, cost, or legacy architectural constraints. I understand that. But from a product standpoint, the customer impact remains the same. When coverage gaps increase, trust erodes.

My point is not “switch aggregators.” It is reduce single-path dependency risk.

Chris_QPW

Yes, I agree it would be better if they have multiple aggregator support.

jacobs

I'm curious about how having multiple aggregator providers works. First, I imagine there's a substantial cost for the added provider. But assuming Quicken could absorb that cost and do the development work to integrate another data provider, how would Quicken determine which provider to use for each of the 10,000+ financial institutions they use? Someone manually selecting which provider for each institution? Does the existing FIDIR.txt file come from Quicken of Intuit, and if the latter, how would a list of financial institutions from an aggregator like Plaid be integrated? And would this be transparent to the user? That is, if someone or some process determined that Intuit's connection to XYZ Financial is not working but Plaid's is, could Quicken just switch, temporarily or long-term, behind the scenes? Does the OAUTH token for connectivity to XYZ Financial work independent of which aggregator is connecting, or would the user have to disconnect and reconnect their account(s)? Are the same error codes returned by each data provider, or would Quicken have to build new error messaging if it's different?

Chris_QPW

@jacobs This is definitely not a trivial task, and frankly one I doubt Quicken Inc will ever take on.

The way I have seen it done in other products is the user selects at the time of setting up the online connection.

Currently the FIDIR.txt file comes from Intuit. It is the aggregator that actually decides what financial institution it supports. Any aggregator would have some kind of similar list. Either in a file format or in a call to their API.

If remove Direct Connect from the picture what we are really talking about is changes on the server only. Well, it should be that, but I suspect that Quicken Inc didn't implement their interface in a generic way and as such it might be much more difficult.

To understand how this would be possible let's look at the history of Express Web Connect. "Web Connect" ⇒ QFX file. "Express" log into web server and get the QFX file automatically. But what happens when there isn't any QFX file on the web server? Intuit got the agreement to get the transactions in a different format like maybe CSV or JSON. So, Inuit had to get those transactions in that format and then reformat them into the format that Quicken understood (OFX).

Having multiple aggregators is basically the same. The server looks at the connection information and sees which aggregator to send the request to, and when it gets that data back it translates it into the format that Quicken needs. The difference here of course is that now Quicken Inc is doing that translating.

If done right the user would notice almost no differences.

jacobs

The way I have seen it done in other products is the user selects at the time of setting up the online connection.

@Chris_QPW So from that statement, if my connection to XYZ Financial goes out, I'd have to disconnect and re-connect using the alternative aggregator, going through the OAUTH login process. I think that would be confusing to a lot of users.

What I thought @xriley75 was suggesting is that a proper implementation would somehow allow on-the-fly switching, behind the scenes, if one aggregator can't connect but another can. If the user would be responsible for making the switch, on an FI by FI basis, and Quicken is just providing the infrastructure to do so, I see that as more resilient but more complex for users.

This is definitely not a trivial task, and frankly one I doubt Quicken Inc will ever take on.

Some comments about connectivity to specific FIs which Simplifi is doing successfully while the Classic products are not seemed to indicate they may already be doing this to some extent. Specifically:

In the Simplifi community forum [moderator Natalie] seems to have solved the connection to Bilt 2.0 via Plaid.

Maybe they are using Simplifi as the proving ground for new technology, since it's a newer code base and can be quickly iterated on the fly to fix problems without needing to release repeated product updates for users to install?

Chris_QPW

Yes, it would be ideal to be able to switch on the fly, but I don't see how that would work unless you authorized both upfront.

One of the key points about how Express Web Connect +/FDX works is that you aren't just sending some username and password or "static token". You are taken to the financial institution's website to tell them to authorize a given aggregator to get your data. You aren't given a "general authorization for all aggregators" to fetch your data.