Authorize.net vs NMI

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

By Marcus Reed·Updated October 13, 2026

Authorize.net Review →NMI Review →Authorize.net Pricing →NMI Pricing →

Both are gateways that sit on top of other companies' processing, which makes this a like-for-like pairing. Authorize.net has been part of Visa, through CyberSource, since 2010; it mixes XML and newer REST endpoints and charges a monthly gateway fee. NMI connects to 200+ processors through one API, reaches in-store devices through terminal partners, and gives partners a revenue share without a facilitation registration.

Feature Comparison

Authorize.net4.6

vs13 criteria

NMI6.8Winner

Feature	Authorize.net	NMI	Notes
Integration Architecture	5	7	NMI has an edge (7 vs 5). Processor-agnostic gateway connecting to 200+ processors through a single API integration. Authorize.net: Legacy gateway architecture with long market presence but aging technical foundation
API & Developer Experience	5	6	NMI scores slightly higher (6 vs 5). Functional APIs with SDKs in PHP, C#, Java; less polished than Stripe but adequate for integration. Authorize.net: Dated API design with XML-based endpoints alongside newer REST options
White-Label Capabilities	3	9	NMI leads significantly (9 vs 3). Full white-label gateway — ISVs can brand the entire payment experience including portals and onboarding. Authorize.net: Minimal white-label — Authorize.net branding visible in hosted payment pages
Processor Flexibility	4	10	NMI leads significantly (10 vs 4). Connects to 200+ processors allowing ISVs to route transactions and switch acquirers without rebuilding. Authorize.net: Supports multiple processors but switching requires significant integration effort
Pricing & Fee Structure	5	7	NMI has an edge (7 vs 5). Gateway-as-a-service with per-transaction fees ($0.02–$0.10); processor costs are separate and negotiable. Authorize.net: Monthly gateway fee ($25) plus per-transaction charges; processor fees are separate
Omnichannel & In-Person Payments	4	8	NMI leads significantly (8 vs 4). Supports POS integrations through multiple terminal partnerships and payment devices. Authorize.net: Limited POS integrations through third-party hardware partnerships
Fraud & Security	6	5	Authorize.net scores slightly higher (6 vs 5). Advanced Fraud Detection Suite (AFDS) with configurable transaction filters. NMI: Basic fraud tools and tokenization; relies on processor-level advanced fraud detection
Revenue Sharing	3	7	NMI leads significantly (7 vs 3). Partner-first model with revenue sharing from first transaction through gateway fee markup. Authorize.net: Minimal ISV-specific revenue sharing; primarily a gateway service without partner economics
Merchant Onboarding	6	7	NMI scores slightly higher (7 vs 6). Automated TurboApp onboarding with high same-day approval rates for ISV sub-merchants. Authorize.net: Straightforward setup but manual processes for sub-merchant provisioning
Global Reach	5	4	Authorize.net scores slightly higher (5 vs 4). Primarily US, Canada, UK, Europe, and Australia; limited emerging market coverage. NMI: Primarily US-focused gateway; limited international acquiring compared to global processors
Recurring Billing	6	7	NMI scores slightly higher (7 vs 6). Built-in recurring billing and tokenized card storage for subscription management. Authorize.net: Automated Recurring Billing (ARB) feature handles basic subscription scenarios
Customer Support	5	5	Both score 5/10. Authorize.net: Phone and email support with reasonable response times; owned by Visa/Cybersource. NMI: Partner support team with account management; less self-service tooling than newer platforms.
PayFac Options	3	7	NMI leads significantly (7 vs 3). Partner-enabled model sits between referral and full PayFac — ISVs earn rev-share without full 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 NMI 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

NMI

Best for ISVs wanting white-label gateway capabilities with multi-processor flexibility. Ideal when the ISV needs to support multiple processors or offer processor choice to merchants.

Visit nmi.com ↗

Authorize.net vs NMI: What ISVs Need to Know

Choosing between Authorize.net and NMI 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 NMI comes down to how each platform approaches ISV payment facilitation. Authorize.net and NMI 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 NMI 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 NMI 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 NMI, 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.