Although Capitec Connect and FNB Connect are sometimes presented as competing concepts of how a bank should interact with the mobile network, a detailed analysis shows their significant similarity. Both companies operate on Cell C, serve exclusively their banking clients, segment rewards based on banking relationship, sell phones on installment plans, and allow customers to top up their balance via communication services.
Furthermore, both companies measure their success by the number of active users rather than the number of issued SIM cards, and they exist with one goal: to increase the loyalty of the bank's customer base, not to generate huge profits from providing communication services.
Capitec Connect
FNB Connect CEO, Sashin Sookroo, openly stated in an interview with TechCentral on Thursday that the business does not aim to capture the cheapest market segment. He emphasized that only customers who either pay for the service or generate network traffic—what the industry calls 'truly active'—are considered, and this is measured over three months, not just the number of issued SIM cards. Based on this, the MVNO owned by FNB has just over a million subscribers.
Sookroo noted that South Africans often have multiple SIM cards—one for home, one for data, etc. FNB's goal is to become the SIM card that is actively used, not one of several lying in a drawer. He described the mechanism the bank pursues: the customer uses FNB bank, receives connectivity from FNB, earns rewards, and spends them on more data or a new phone.
This strategy is consistent and almost verbatim matches the arguments Capitec has been making since 2022. Capitec Connect Head, Dalene Steyn, told TechCentral in 2024 that the main objective of the business is not income or revenue, but the active use of the service by customers, and that increasing the number of active users is her primary indicator.
What actually differs
There are four aspects that separate them, and all stem from which bank the customer banks with. Firstly, distribution: Capitec sells prepaid services in its branches, processes Rica immediately, top-ups occur via USSD and gift vouchers, and from October 2025, it sells smartphones with no-deposit financing. This architecture is designed for a customer who may not have a card or data connection at the time of purchase. FNB Connect, however, is sold through the FNB app and online banking, assuming the customer is already authorized.
Secondly, product weighting: Capitec operates on a prepaid model, whereas the FNB base predominantly consists of postpaid and rechargeable services. Thirdly, the reward format differs: Capitec uses one lever—linking the Connect number to the main account grants 20% more data upon every top-up, and this bonus is the same for everyone who links the number, plus an additional 1 GB per month for credit card holders. FNB applies a multi-tiered system: cashback for tariffs and devices increases depending on the eBucks level and amounts spent on qualified cards, starting from zero at lower tiers and reaching up to 100% cashback on a device at the highest tier.
Fourthly, customer base size: Capitec has 26 million customers, while FNB's retail base is slightly less than nine million, which is about a third of Capitec's base.
These differences are real, but they represent not so much competing strategies as the same strategy implemented across different customer segments. The bank serving 26 million people, many of whom use prepaid and cash methods, sells SIM cards at counters and sets fixed prices. The bank serving nine million, who are wealthier and more app-oriented, sells services within the app and rewards by tiers.
Why one is bigger
When asked why Capitec has more customers despite being newer, Sookroo explained it was due to timing and the pioneer's cost. He noted that FNB incurred 'school costs' as an early innovator, and the network quality at the time was insufficient. These problems are in the past, and the focus is now on growth and scaling.
Customer base size explains most of the rest. Capitec reported 1.5 million active customers over three months as of February 28, 2026, compared to just over a million for FNB over the same period—which is about two and a half times less, given the base that is three times larger.
Regarding penetration, FNB performs better than general figures suggest.
The disclosure gap is worth noting for what it is
It is worth noting the following data: Capitec presents Capitec Connect as a product line with its own net profit: 442 million rand versus 193 million rand, while data traffic tripled to 40.5 petabytes, and voice minutes more than doubled to 768 million. FirstRand reports FNB Connect revenue growth of 14% to over 3 billion rand, transaction volumes of 26 billion rand versus 22 billion rand, and average revenue per user that grew by 8%, although this figure includes digital services, devices, and MVNO combined. Thus, these two companies cannot be directly compared.
Converging further
Product roadmaps are moving towards each other, not apart. Last week, FNB launched the 'air advance' product with Optasia, allowing customers to receive funds for connectivity when needed; Sookroo declined to comment on who bears the credit risk. Capitec has been doing this for a year—its connectivity advances have tripled to 97.3 million rand in the year ending February.
FNB's device sales business is growing by over 18% annually, sold under terms from three to 36 months with partial payment via eBucks, while refurbished devices are performing well alongside desired models. Capitec started selling devices in October 2025 with no-deposit financing and free monthly traffic. About 30% of FNB's digital sales are now made via eSIM; Capitec announced plans to implement eSIM this year.
Capitec has expressed interest in broadband home internet. When asked if FNB would follow suit, Sookroo twice declined to answer, stating only that it is a significant market opportunity and that FNB will make announcements closer to the appropriate time. He gave a similar evasive answer regarding fixed wireless access, which MVNOs consider.
They cannot take each other’s customers
Perhaps the biggest consequence of the closed model is that these two companies are not actually direct competitors. To choose between their SIM cards, one must bank with both institutions. Neither can win a subscriber from the other without first winning the bank client, which is a much more complex and costly task.
Who they compete with is the existing networks, and examples of each other. When Capitec lowered data prices or made in-network calls free, the pressure was put on Vodacom, MTN, and Telkom, not FNB.
This raises a different open question than the usual one: what will happen when the closed banking MVNO attracts everyone in its base who wants a second SIM card?
The FNB model is protected from saturation because it does not require revenue from communication services to justify itself. The Capitec model has the same ceiling with a wider base, but with thinner margins, with deepening dependence on the host network, which it does not control. Both banks have built the same machine. The interesting point is what they will do when it stops growing.