When teams evaluate Dino, they often also look at Mercury, Ramp, or Slash. That is reasonable. The mistake is letting that comparison dominate the main pricing page.

Pricing pages should answer one question clearly: what will I pay, and why?

For Dino, the answer is intentionally narrow:

• You choose a plan for limits and controls.
• You pay explicit usage fees when money is moved for agents.
• If you use Dino Funding, our Column-backed banking accounts, the budget funding fee is waived.

That keeps the bill legible. It also keeps the page focused on the customer’s buying decision instead of turning the whole flow into a competitor matrix.

The Short Version

Mercury, Ramp, and Slash all start from a familiar promise: low-friction or free core access, then added economics through paid plans, per-user upgrades, transfer fees, payment-rail fees, or workflow add-ons.

Dino is different in one important way: the pricing model is designed around agent money controls, not just business banking or card issuance.

That means the pricing conversation is less about “Which bank account is cheapest?” and more about “How do we safely fund, approve, audit, and govern AI or automation spend?”

Mercury

Mercury’s public pricing emphasizes a free banking core, then paid upgrades for more advanced workflows and support.

That model works well if the main job is operating a modern startup bank account with optional software layers on top.

Dino is a better fit when the hard problem is controlled spend orchestration for agents, automations, or programmable workflows.

Ramp

Ramp leads with free cards and expense software, then moves larger teams into a paid Plus tier with deeper controls and integrations.

That is a strong pitch for companies standardizing on a classic corporate card and expense-management stack.

Dino is better when the core requirement is programmable money movement, approval gating, spending keys, and auditable agent spend instead of traditional employee card management.

Slash

Slash is closer to a simple plan ladder, but the economics still depend on payment rails, wires, ACH, RTP, and foreign-transaction fees.

That is normal for banking products. The main question is whether the product makes those costs understandable in the context of how teams actually operate.

Dino keeps that story compact: plan, usage, and a clear waiver when funding comes through Dino Funding.

Why This Content Lives Here Instead of on /pricing

Customers arriving on the pricing page are usually close to a decision. At that point, competitor framing can dilute clarity instead of increasing it.

We would rather the pricing page do three things well:

• explain the plan structure,
• explain the usage model,
• explain the Dino Funding waiver.

Comparison content still has value, especially for search. It just belongs in a separate content surface where readers expect context, interpretation, and market framing.

Current Dino Pricing Logic

• Starter is the entry point for smaller teams.
• Pro raises limits, unlocks approvals and policy controls, and lowers usage fees.
• Funding agent budgets costs 3% on Starter and 2.5% on Pro, with a $1 minimum per funding event.
• That funding fee is waived when the money comes through Dino Funding, our Column-backed business banking accounts.
• In-app swaps cost 0.6% on Starter and 0.3% on Pro, with network and routing costs separate.

That is the whole model.

If that sounds like the right shape for your team, the main pricing page is the fastest path.