Mimicking their recent farcical testimony before the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee regarding the OPEKEPE scandal, the management of Piraeus Bank is now invoking a “right to silence” concerning the dismal state of Snappi.
One of the country’s so-called “systemic” banks—which continues to exist thanks to our money and recapitalizations funded by the sacrifices of Greek taxpayers—persists in operating not for the benefit of consumers, citizens, and businesses, but within a Third World mindset regarding its role.
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU: Will anyone apologize for the Piraeus Bank fiasco at Snappi?
The recent debacle with Snappi serves as an admission of guilt for the Bank’s failure. This is not merely the perception of a few disappointed users; it is reflected in a systematic, independent evaluation by the FinTech Insights platform. The data portrays a neobank stuck at the bottom of the rankings, both in terms of functionalities and the quality of user experience (UX).
Piraeus Bank remains silent about this outrageous waste of millions, weighed down by such a negative outcome.
The Numbers Tell the Truth About the Collapse
In the Functionalities Overview table, Snappi appears with just 128 functions, while the average for the rest of the sample—comprising Greek banks and European challenger banks—reaches 320. Eurobank boasts 307 functions, National Bank of Greece (NBG) 285, Piraeus 299, and Alpha Bank 226. Even payzy, which started as a simple digital wallet, offers 199 functions—over 50% more than Snappi.
Πηγή: https://www.fintechinsights.io
At the European Union level, the comparison becomes humiliating for Piraeus. Revolut reaches 724 functions, while N26 and Wise stand at 318 each, leaving Snappi at the very tail of a list it claimed it would “disrupt.”
The Market Positioning map, which plots the total number of functionalities against the UX score, is even more revealing. Snappi, with 128 functions and a UX score of 667, stands isolated in the bottom-left corner of the chart—a combination of poor functionality and mediocre user experience. In contrast, banks like Revolut, Eurobank, NBG, N26, and Wise combine multiple features with UX scores exceeding 720 points. This confirms that Snappi isn’t just slightly behind; it is essentially out of the competition. For a service launched as the “spearhead” of Piraeus’s new era, the results should have those responsible looking for a place to hide.
Furthermore, the Gap Analysis shows with mathematical precision that Snappi falls short exactly where it should excel. In the “Accounts” category, there are 107 functions present in competitors but missing from Snappi; 127 in “Money Transfers,” 91 in “Cards,” 44 in “Personal Finance Management” (PFM), and 194 in “Wealth Management.” Conversely, Snappi’s “unique” features are practically non-existent: one element in login & security, one in PFM, one in platform extras, and a complete void in critical areas like open banking or junior accounts.
A Half-Finished Product
Essentially, Snappi is presented as a half-finished product that neither adequately covers basic banking needs nor offers any substantial innovation.
It is worth noting that FinTech Insights does not rely on self-reported bank presentations but on the analysis of real accounts and the mapping of all user journeys within the apps, using a unified UX and functionality measurement methodology for all players. This means that the data for Snappi and the comparisons with Greek and European banks stem from the same rigorous evaluation framework, making the picture not just negative, but fundamentally problematic.
No Apology, No Accountability
There is a Greek saying that “ever since the apology was invented, philotimo (honor/decency) was lost.” In the case of Piraeus Bank and the Snappi failure, both have been lost.
Weeks pass, but the silence from Piraeus Bank’s management remains deafening. Not a single apology has been issued to the customers who trusted a clearly inferior service, nor has there been any commitment to a specific recovery plan to bridge these massive gaps.
This silence, contrasted with the celebratory tone of the initial announcements, inevitably raises a relentless question: How is it possible for so much money to have been poured into a project that—according to an independent and documented evaluation like that of FinTech Insights—is already recorded as one of the most failed examples of digital banking in the Greek market? Until a convincing answer is provided, the Snappi disgrace remains an open wound of accountability.
