Workspace
    • Briefing
    • Ask Airframe
    Transformation
    • Audit
    Your Stack
    • Registry
    • Finance
    • Context
    Discover
    Powered by Airframe
    1. Research
    2. /
    3. Products
    4. /
    5. RQD* Clearing
    RQD* Clearing

    RQD* Clearing

    The Future of Clearing is RQD

    Est 2019
    LinkedIn 5K|Web traffic 4K|FTEs 38|HQ New York, NY
    MarketsBrokerage Infrastructure & API BrokersClearing & Settlement Infrastructure
    RQD* Clearing screenshot
    FirmCompareTractionAnalysisAdvocates

    Insights

    All insightsAccountingFinanceSoftwareCustomer experience

    Benchmarks

    The Software LeaderboardMethodology

    Tools & data

    Market ExplorerStudioRegistry

    Company

    AboutCareers

    Legal

    Privacy PolicyTerms of Service

    © 2026 Airframe, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Published Oct 7, 2026

      01Common complaints

      1. If a governance model requires long-tenured incumbent providers - Organizations that require long operational histories and broad public referenceability may prefer established incumbent clearers (e.g., Pershing, Fidelity custody ecosystem). 2. If the organization lacks engineering resources for API integration - An API-centric integration model can demand engineering and operational support; organizations with minimal development capacity may prefer providers with more turnkey, low-code integration options. 3. If broad multi-asset coverage is required from a single provider - Public materials emphasize U.S. equities/options/ETFs. Requirements for futures, FX prime brokerage, or extensive global custody may necessitate other providers. 4. If standardized, publicly visible pricing is a procurement requirement - The vendor’s public materials do not include a rate card; procurement teams requiring transparent public pricing may find this approach unsuitable. 5. If procurement relies heavily on third-party review volumes - The vendor has limited presence on mainstream software review platforms; where review volume is a gating factor, this may be a disqualifier.

      Deal disqualifiers

      • Requirements for broad multi-asset clearing from a single provider (e.g., futures, FX, global custody)
      • Procurement processes that require publicly published, standardized pricing
      • Risk committees that mandate long-tenured incumbent providers without exceptions

      Publicly visible limitations

      • Pricing transparency: No public fee schedule is available.
      • Review footprint: Limited presence on mainstream review platforms.
      • Public security detail: Trust Center references SOC 2 Type II but deeper control details are gated.

      Roadmap / forward-looking items (public mentions)

      • Vendor materials reference work on extended clearing hours with industry utilities (DTCC/NSCC); timelines are subject to regulatory and industry changes and should be treated as directional.

      Scale limitations and operational validation

      No explicit production "break points" are publicly documented. Procurement should request:

      • Current production volumes with evidence
      • Performance and load-testing results
      • Capacity planning and scaling procedures

      02Why they buy

      Key differentiators (publicly observable)

      • Vendor and press materials consistently reference a cloud-hosted clearing/custody architecture and programmatic integration via documented APIs.
      • Developer-oriented documentation, including an API catalog and webhook references, indicates an engineering-facing integration posture.

      Claims that require validation

      • Short implementation timelines and flexible commercial terms are stated in public materials; these should be validated contractually and via client references.
      • Operational scale statements (e.g., high daily notional volumes) are vendor-published and should be verified independently.

      Areas where competitors may be stronger

      • Operational maturity for handling long-tail exceptions and extreme market events
      • Larger client bases and established integrations with ecosystem vendors
      • Broader product and custody coverage

      03Field reports

      Key limitation: limited review-platform coverage

      Correspondent clearing providers typically have limited presence on mainstream software review platforms. Searches did not surface a substantial review corpus for RQD on major review platforms.

      This implies buyer diligence will rely on:

      • Vendor-provided references
      • Regulatory and industry standing
      • Community discussions and trade-press coverage

      Community / social proof (community forums, professional networks) — examples

      Available community signals are sparse and generally anecdotal:

      • A community forum thread referenced awareness of RQD among trading practitioners; statements are hearsay and should not be used as evidence of product performance.
      • Posts on professional networks by individuals associated with or promoting RQD emphasize faster onboarding and technology attributes; these posts are vendor-adjacent and should be weighed accordingly.

      Commonly cited reasons customers might engage (as described in vendor materials)

      Vendor materials and partner announcements highlight:

      • A cloud-hosted platform architecture compared with older batch-based systems
      • Programmatic access via APIs for account opening, reporting, and margin data
      • Statements about shorter implementation timelines and flexible arrangements

      Common reasons for leaving or not choosing (inferred from market practice)

      In clearing relationships, churn or vendor selection decisions often hinge on: - Service quality and responsiveness during outages or corporate actions - Margin/risk terms and availability of product-specific margin treatments - Fees and clearing economics - Asset coverage and the ability to support complex account types - Preference for long-tenured incumbents with extensive operational history Public review evidence specific to RQD on these points is limited; validate via references and procurement due diligence.

      1) Vendor/partner press releases (select examples)

      - TradingBlock expansion (April 26, 2022): A partnership announcement notes RQD and TradingBlock expanded a relationship to include clearing and execution for retail and active trading lines. The release indicates support for a retail use case but does not provide audited performance metrics or detailed implementation timelines. - Strategic investment announcement (March 28, 2023): A vendor announcement references substantial volumes processed daily; the methodology for that figure is not provided and should be validated.

      2) GTM consulting case study (IGTMS, Oct 22, 2025)

      A consulting case study claims improvements in go-to-market performance and financial outcomes following a consulting engagement. This material is a third-party marketing narrative focused on GTM and revenue outcomes rather than a technical performance audit; reported metrics are not independently audited.

      3) Industry press coverage

      • Trade press articles describe the vendor's stated architecture (cloud-hosted, near-real-time) and partnerships. These pieces provide context but do not substitute for independent operational validation.

      Bottom line: Press and partner announcements indicate customer activity and partnerships, but independently audited operational and ROI metrics are limited in public sources.

      04Best fit

      Organization size and readiness

      RQD* Clearing's services are targeted at organizations that can support regulatory, operations, and integration needs typical of a correspondent clearing relationship. Practical fits include: - Introducing broker-dealers and fintech broker platforms with operations and engineering capabilities - Organizations with dedicated operations and engineering resources (commonly mid-market sized broker-dealers and up), though smaller broker-dealers may engage depending on scope

      Industries/verticals

      • Online brokerage and active trading platforms
      • Options-focused broker-dealers
      • Execution/routing platforms that require a clearing partner
      • Foreign financial institutions seeking U.S. listed market access

      Decision roles

      • Decision makers: CEO/COO, Head of Brokerage Operations, Head of Clearing/Carrying Relationships, Chief Compliance Officer, CTO
      • Operational users: Brokerage operations, risk/margin teams, customer support, engineering teams integrating APIs

      Pain points addressed

      • Latency and batching in post-trade reporting
      • High-friction onboarding and account opening
      • Clearing conversion complexity
      • Need for programmatic access to clearing data (margin, statuses, positions)

      Deal qualifiers

      • Primary trading in U.S. listed equities/options/ETFs
      • Capacity to staff API integration and support
      • Preference for a technology-forward clearing partner

      05The pitch

      What the product does (core description)

      RQD* Clearing is a U.S. correspondent clearing, custody, and execution provider for broker-dealers and other market participants. Public materials describe a cloud-hosted, low-latency clearing and custody infrastructure with API-based integration. Vendor materials indicate the platform is intended to reduce onboarding time, improve reporting latency, and modernize post-trade workflows relative to legacy clearing firms, though these outcomes should be validated during procurement. Public-facing positioning references: - A clearing platform supporting U.S. listed equities, options, and ETFs. - API-based integration (plus FIX connectivity is referenced in third-party profiles) for trade booking, margin/risk data retrieval, account opening, ACATS workflows, and reporting. - Support for both fully disclosed and omnibus account arrangements. Sources cited in this report include the company site, developer documentation, and third-party press coverage.

      Target market and market positioning

      RQD presents itself as a newer correspondent clearing provider emphasizing a technology-forward approach. Target segments referenced in public materials include: - U.S. broker-dealers (retail, active trading, institutional, routing/execution-focused) - Foreign financial institutions needing U.S. market access / clearing - Proprietary trading firms and global trading firms - Fintech broker platforms seeking streamlined onboarding and programmatic integrations Vendor messaging contrasts RQD's technology posture with older incumbent clearing firms described in vendor materials as less flexible or slower to change.

      Get a comprehensive analysis of RQD* Clearing including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

      Download full report →
      1. If a governance model requires long-tenured incumbent providers

        • Organizations that require long operational histories and broad public referenceability may prefer established incumbent clearers (e.g., Pershing, Fidelity custody ecosystem).
      2. If the organization lacks engineering resources for API integration

        • An API-centric integration model can demand engineering and operational support; organizations with minimal development capacity may prefer providers with more turnkey, low-code integration options.
      3. If broad multi-asset coverage is required from a single provider

        • Public materials emphasize U.S. equities/options/ETFs. Requirements for futures, FX prime brokerage, or extensive global custody may necessitate other providers.
      4. If standardized, publicly visible pricing is a procurement requirement

        • The vendor’s public materials do not include a rate card; procurement teams requiring transparent public pricing may find this approach unsuitable.
      5. If procurement relies heavily on third-party review volumes

        • The vendor has limited presence on mainstream software review platforms; where review volume is a gating factor, this may be a disqualifier.

      In clearing relationships, churn or vendor selection decisions often hinge on:

      • Service quality and responsiveness during outages or corporate actions
      • Margin/risk terms and availability of product-specific margin treatments
      • Fees and clearing economics
      • Asset coverage and the ability to support complex account types
      • Preference for long-tenured incumbents with extensive operational history

      Public review evidence specific to RQD on these points is limited; validate via references and procurement due diligence.

      • TradingBlock expansion (April 26, 2022): A partnership announcement notes RQD and TradingBlock expanded a relationship to include clearing and execution for retail and active trading lines. The release indicates support for a retail use case but does not provide audited performance metrics or detailed implementation timelines.
      • Strategic investment announcement (March 28, 2023): A vendor announcement references substantial volumes processed daily; the methodology for that figure is not provided and should be validated.

      RQD* Clearing's services are targeted at organizations that can support regulatory, operations, and integration needs typical of a correspondent clearing relationship. Practical fits include:

      • Introducing broker-dealers and fintech broker platforms with operations and engineering capabilities
      • Organizations with dedicated operations and engineering resources (commonly mid-market sized broker-dealers and up), though smaller broker-dealers may engage depending on scope

      RQD* Clearing is a U.S. correspondent clearing, custody, and execution provider for broker-dealers and other market participants. Public materials describe a cloud-hosted, low-latency clearing and custody infrastructure with API-based integration. Vendor materials indicate the platform is intended to reduce onboarding time, improve reporting latency, and modernize post-trade workflows relative to legacy clearing firms, though these outcomes should be validated during procurement.

      Public-facing positioning references:

      • A clearing platform supporting U.S. listed equities, options, and ETFs.
      • API-based integration (plus FIX connectivity is referenced in third-party profiles) for trade booking, margin/risk data retrieval, account opening, ACATS workflows, and reporting.
      • Support for both fully disclosed and omnibus account arrangements.

      Sources cited in this report include the company site, developer documentation, and third-party press coverage.

      RQD presents itself as a newer correspondent clearing provider emphasizing a technology-forward approach. Target segments referenced in public materials include:

      • U.S. broker-dealers (retail, active trading, institutional, routing/execution-focused)
      • Foreign financial institutions needing U.S. market access / clearing
      • Proprietary trading firms and global trading firms
      • Fintech broker platforms seeking streamlined onboarding and programmatic integrations

      Vendor messaging contrasts RQD's technology posture with older incumbent clearing firms described in vendor materials as less flexible or slower to change.