Authorize.net vs Global Payments

A feature-by-feature comparison for ISVs integrating payments.

By Marcus Reed·Updated October 13, 2026

Authorize.net Review →Global Payments Review →Authorize.net Pricing →Global Payments Pricing →

Authorize.net is a gateway, and only a gateway. It passes each transaction to whichever processor the merchant uses, and it has sat inside Visa since 2010, when Visa bought CyberSource, which had acquired it in 2007. Global Payments covers that processor layer and more: it is a full-stack company with its own gateway and acquiring network, plus a hybrid facilitation model for partners.

Feature Comparison

Authorize.net4.6

vs13 criteria

Global Payments5.8Winner

Feature	Authorize.net	Global Payments	Notes
Integration Architecture	5	7	Global Payments has an edge (7 vs 5). Full-stack processor with proprietary gateway — one vendor relationship covering acquiring and processing. Authorize.net: Legacy gateway architecture with long market presence but aging technical foundation
API & Developer Experience	5	5	Both score 5/10. Authorize.net: Dated API design with XML-based endpoints alongside newer REST options. Global Payments: Dedicated integration specialists provided but developer self-service tooling lags behind modern platforms.
White-Label Capabilities	3	4	Global Payments scores slightly higher (4 vs 3). Co-branded experience with some customization but less depth than pure white-label gateways. Authorize.net: Minimal white-label — Authorize.net branding visible in hosted payment pages
Processor Flexibility	4	3	Authorize.net scores slightly higher (4 vs 3). Supports multiple processors but switching requires significant integration effort. Global Payments: ISVs are locked to Global Payments' acquiring network with no external routing
Pricing & Fee Structure	5	4	Authorize.net scores slightly higher (5 vs 4). Monthly gateway fee ($25) plus per-transaction charges; processor fees are separate. Global Payments: Bundled pricing with volume incentives; independent reviews note rates can increase after year one
Omnichannel & In-Person Payments	4	8	Global Payments leads significantly (8 vs 4). Extensive terminal and POS ecosystem with deep retail vertical integration. Authorize.net: Limited POS integrations through third-party hardware partnerships
Fraud & Security	6	7	Global Payments scores slightly higher (7 vs 6). Enterprise-grade fraud tools and compliance management across payment channels. Authorize.net: Advanced Fraud Detection Suite (AFDS) with configurable transaction filters
Revenue Sharing	3	5	Global Payments has an edge (5 vs 3). Rev-share available but independent sources indicate limited access for smaller ISVs. Authorize.net: Minimal ISV-specific revenue sharing; primarily a gateway service without partner economics
Merchant Onboarding	6	6	Both score 6/10. Authorize.net: Straightforward setup but manual processes for sub-merchant provisioning. Global Payments: Two onboarding paths — fully-supported (slower) or ISV-controlled (faster) with managed compliance.
Global Reach	5	8	Global Payments has an edge (8 vs 5). Local acquiring in 30+ countries with strong multinational merchant coverage. Authorize.net: Primarily US, Canada, UK, Europe, and Australia; limited emerging market coverage
Recurring Billing	6	6	Both score 6/10. Authorize.net: Automated Recurring Billing (ARB) feature handles basic subscription scenarios. Global Payments: Recurring payment support through proprietary gateway with standard tokenization.
Customer Support	5	4	Authorize.net scores slightly higher (5 vs 4). Phone and email support with reasonable response times; owned by Visa/Cybersource. Global Payments: Large support organization with industry-specific teams but variable response times reported
PayFac Options	3	8	Global Payments leads significantly (8 vs 3). Hybrid PayFac model allowing ISVs to facilitate payments without full PayFac registration. Authorize.net: No native PayFac capabilities — ISVs must build their own facilitation layer

Get this comparison as a shareable PDF

We'll send the Authorize.net vs Global Payments breakdown to your inbox — ready to share with your team.

Best for

Authorize.net

Best for ISVs integrating with merchants who already use Authorize.net, or ISVs wanting multi-processor flexibility through a widely-supported gateway. Not ideal for ISVs building modern embedded payment experiences.

Visit authorize.net ↗

Best for

Global Payments

Best for ISVs wanting a large, established payment partner with deep vertical expertise (healthcare, education, restaurants) and bank distribution. Less ideal for ISVs wanting fast, self-serve integration.

Visit globalpayments.com ↗

Authorize.net vs Global Payments: What ISVs Need to Know

Choosing between Authorize.net and Global Payments for embedded payments is a decision that directly impacts your ISV’s revenue model, merchant experience, and technical architecture. This comparison breaks down where each platform excels from an ISV integration perspective.

Key Differences for ISVs

The most important distinction between Authorize.net and Global Payments comes down to how each platform approaches ISV payment facilitation. Authorize.net and Global Payments take fundamentally different approaches to merchant onboarding, revenue sharing, and platform integration — and those differences matter when you’re building payments into your software.

Integration architecture varies significantly between the two. ISVs evaluating Authorize.net vs Global Payments should consider how each platform handles sub-merchant onboarding, payment splitting, and settlement timing. The right choice depends on your specific vertical, transaction volumes, and how much control you need over the merchant payment experience.

Pricing and revenue economics also differ. ISVs earn money from embedded payments through the spread between what they charge merchants and what the processor charges them. The pricing model each platform uses — flat-rate, interchange-plus, or custom — directly affects your payment revenue per transaction.

Which Platform Fits Your ISV?

The best choice between Authorize.net and Global Payments depends on your ISV’s specific requirements:

Transaction volume: Higher-volume ISVs may benefit from interchange-plus pricing, while lower-volume platforms often prefer flat-rate simplicity
Merchant type: B2B merchants have different payment needs than consumer-facing businesses
Geographic scope: International payment support varies significantly between providers
Integration depth: Some ISVs need white-label checkout while others are fine with co-branded experiences
Revenue model: How much of the payment margin you want to capture determines which platform’s economics work better

The ISV Payment Integration Perspective

For ISVs evaluating Authorize.net vs Global Payments, the comparison shouldn’t stop at processing fees. Consider the total cost of integration, ongoing maintenance, and the revenue opportunity from embedded payments. The platform that generates the most payment revenue for your ISV while providing the best merchant experience is the right choice — and that calculation is different for every software company.

Evaluate both platforms against your specific use case. Request ISV-specific pricing from each, and compare the total economics including setup costs, per-transaction revenue, and the engineering investment required to integrate and maintain each platform.