Xplor Pay vs Authorize.net
A feature-by-feature comparison for ISVs integrating payments.
Xplor Pay wins for ISVs prioritizing purpose-built embedded payments platform for isvs and vertic. Authorize.net is the better choice when massive installed base — one of the most widely-used gateway.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Xplor Pay | Authorize.net |
|---|---|---|
| Integration Architecture | 8 | 5 |
| API & Developer Experience | 7 | 5 |
| White-Label Capabilities | 8 | 3 |
| Processor Flexibility | 6 | 4 |
| Pricing & Fee Structure | 7 | 5 |
| Omnichannel & In-Person Payments | 7 | 4 |
| Fraud & Security | 7 | 6 |
| Revenue Sharing | 8 | 3 |
| Merchant Onboarding | 8 | 6 |
| Global Reach | 5 | 5 |
| Recurring Billing | 7 | 6 |
| Customer Support | 8 | 5 |
| PayFac Options | 8 | 3 |
Get this comparison as a shareable PDF
We'll send the Xplor Pay vs Authorize.net breakdown to your inbox — ready to share with your team.
Best for
Xplor Pay
Best for ISVs and vertical SaaS platforms wanting full PayFac capabilities, white-label branding, integrated hardware, and ISV-optimized revenue sharing from a purpose-built partner.
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 paym
Xplor Pay vs Authorize.net: What ISVs Need to Know
Choosing between Xplor Pay and Authorize.net 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.
As a platform purpose-built for ISV payment integration, Xplor Pay brings a focused approach that differs significantly from Authorize.net’s broader market strategy.
Key Differences for ISVs
The most important distinction between Xplor Pay and Authorize.net comes down to how each platform approaches ISV payment facilitation. Xplor Pay and Authorize.net 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 Xplor Pay vs Authorize.net 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 Xplor Pay and Authorize.net 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 Xplor Pay vs Authorize.net, 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.