Context: Reducing bank fees is a treasury team goal with obvious benefits. The question is how best to analyze those fees and whether paying for a tool designed specifically for that purpose is a good investment. The desired outcomes include making sure a bank is charging what you agreed to; allocating spend on bank fees by business unit and region; benchmarking across your company’s own banking partners; and external benchmarking against peer data. In practice, many treasury teams rely on Excel spreadsheets to monitor fees. Some also use tools offered by their TMS vendor.
Member question: “Has anyone used Redbridge for bank fees and willing to share their experience? Redbridge pitched their bank fee assessment to us and I would appreciate any feedback from teams that have used them. Did you get any benefit out of it? Was the time investment worth it? Did you actually achieve any meaningful savings?” - The member of NeuGroup for Global Cash & Banking elaborated to NeuGroup Insights: “I think like everyone, we are wondering whether our bank pricing is market [rate] or if we have areas where we could negotiate more. We are not really looking for a system for bank fees (we already get the reporting into Kyriba); but the idea of being able to get a competitive comparison of our pricing is interesting.”
- In an email, Redbridge told NeuGroup Insights it offers all clients “an initial, complimentary assessment of their pricing compared to their peers and a specific advisory engagement that helps assess what is fair in context of the size and complexity of their bank relationships. We have over $3.5 billion in bank fees in our database that is anonymized and aggregated to produce benchmarking reports used exclusively by our consulting team.”
Peer answer 1: “We implemented Redbridge in Q4 2025, and I wanted to share my thoughts based on our experience so far. Overall, I think the HawkeyeBSB product has a number of strong qualities. That said, like many solutions, some of the benefits can be a bit overstated. Where it really performs well is in environments with straightforward billing arrangements. Once you introduce complexity—such as volume-based pricing, tiering or multiple agreements—things can become more challenging. - “Starting with service and support: Early on, the team was very attentive and responsive to our needs. Over time, that level of engagement has declined somewhat, which I suspect is due to turnover and resourcing constraints.
- “From an implementation standpoint, the process was very smooth. Redbridge handled much of the heavy lifting. We coordinated introductory calls with our banks, executed documentation and completed some testing; overall it was a seamless experience.
“Post go-live, we’ve encountered a few issues:
- “Structure: We have a fairly unique setup with one bank, including two separate billing arrangements. It’s common for service codes from both agreements to hit the same account, and Hawkeye has had difficulty consistently determining which agreement to apply.
- “Pricing: Our structure with another bank includes tiered pricing based on transaction volume. In the U.S., calculations are working as expected. However, for a U.K. account tied to the same agreement, fees are being duplicated in reporting. Instead of applying tiered pricing correctly, the system appears to multiply total volume across all tiers.
“That said, the platform has delivered value: We’ve identified several instances where banks overcharged us for services, and we were able to successfully recover those amounts. Net-net, I’d say the tool is most effective in simpler environments, but it can still provide meaningful insights and savings even in more complex setups—just with some limitations and additional oversight required.”
Redbridge responds. Redbridge reviewed an anonymous version of the member’s comments. Below is an email sent to NeuGroup Insights by Redbridge, written in the form of a note to the member. It has been edited for clarity and brevity.
“Thank you for the attention you have brought to the challenges experienced by your company with handling incredibly unique billing arrangements. Having two different prices approved for the same service in the same account that is not a part of a tier/threshold pricing method is an extremely rare case; the solution must be treated with caution as we would not want to suppress any data being sent by the bank. We are glad to hear that the system is accurately applying complex price methods at the account/bank service ID level which is standard for all banks globally to apply.
- “Billing statements are produced at the country level by all banks, which makes cross-border tiering, your second concern, a particular challenge. If the bank is reporting the volumes on both country/detail statements, we again need to be very cautious with suppressing data fields. Using bank-produced summary statements, if they exist, is not recommended by the CGI-Market Practice; but, if verified, that could be a solution.
- “In response to your comments, we have escalated both of these cases internally and opened a formal ticket to investigate with our developers. Additionally, we encourage your treasury team to contact our Head of Client Care for further review and discussion to dive into the specifics of these cases.
- “With any special billing arrangement where the corresponding billing setups within the bank do not conform to file formats readable by bank fee software tools in the market, we recommend our clients reach out to the CGI-MP Working Group that maintains the billing standards.
- “Redbridge chairs this committee and works with global banks and other bank fee software vendors to discuss and adapt the message formats where necessary so we can best accommodate unique billing arrangements. We would be happy to add these two use cases to the next CGI-MP Working Group meeting for discussion with the banks and other software vendors.”
Member response. The NeuGroup member appreciated Redbridge’s response and told NeuGroup Insights, “I’ll be the first to admit that our situation isn’t a typical use case. That said, I’d be surprised if we’re the only company dealing with multiple fee structures tied to a single bank account. We’ll follow up directly with Redbridge from here.”
