Methodology
How we score payment platforms for ISVs
Every review, comparison, and pricing page on this site uses the same 13-criterion framework, scored 1–10, grouped into technical, commercial, and operational fit. One rubric. No paid placement. Reviewed quarterly.
ISV-specific criteria
Every criterion is scored from an ISV integration team's perspective — not a single-merchant shopper. Merchant-level reviews don't translate to ISV fit.
Equal-weight scoring
No secret weights baked into the rollup. Use the criterion-level scores to weight by your own roadmap priorities — API quality, PayFac economics, or omnichannel reach.
Editorially independent
No platform has paid for placement, higher scores, or removal of criticism. Referral relationships are disclosed per-page and have zero influence on the score.
The 1–10 rubric
Every criterion maps to one of four score bands. Bands are anchored to capability, not to competitive position — a platform can earn "Best-in-class" on one axis and "Gap" on another.
Significant limitations for ISV use cases. Either the capability is missing or its implementation creates friction in embedded-payment workflows.
Works, but not differentiated. Not a reason to choose the platform. May require workarounds for ISV-specific needs.
Clear ISV advantages. A genuine strength that could influence a platform decision when this criterion matters to your roadmap.
Sets the standard for ISV payment integration on this axis. Reserved for demonstrably superior capabilities — rarely awarded.
The 13 evaluation criteria
Grouped into three categories for scanning. Each criterion is scored independently — the grouping is navigational, not weighted.
Technical fit
How well the platform integrates, scales, and secures ISV workloads.
Integration Architecture
How the platform is structurally designed for ISV embedding — single-platform vs. gateway-only, SDK quality, sandbox environments, and whether the architecture supports multi-tenant deployments natively.
API & Developer Experience
Quality of REST/GraphQL APIs, documentation depth, code samples, SDKs, webhooks, and developer community. Evaluated from an ISV integration team's perspective, not a single-merchant setup.
Processor Flexibility
Whether the platform locks you into a single acquirer or allows routing across multiple processors. Important for ISVs needing geographic or cost-based routing.
Fraud & Security
Built-in fraud detection, ML risk scoring, 3DS2 support, tokenization, PCI scope reduction, and whether these tools are configurable at the ISV level.
Commercial model
Where the margin lives, how it's shared, and how it scales with you.
Pricing & Fee Structure
Transparency of pricing, interchange-plus availability, volume discount tiers, and total cost at ISV-relevant transaction volumes (not merchant-level pricing).
Revenue Sharing
Whether the platform offers ISV revenue-share models on processing volume, the economics of those arrangements, and minimum volume requirements to qualify.
PayFac Options
Native payment facilitation capabilities, managed vs. registered PayFac paths, compliance burden, and whether the platform supports the ISV's desired level of payment ownership.
White-Label Capabilities
How completely an ISV can remove the payment platform's branding from the merchant and end-customer experience — hosted pages, receipts, emails, and dashboards.
Operational reach
What the platform does after integration — onboarding, breadth, support.
Merchant Onboarding
Speed and friction of sub-merchant activation — KYC/AML automation, API-driven onboarding, and whether SMBs can self-serve or require manual review.
Omnichannel & In-Person Payments
Quality of POS/terminal hardware, unified online-offline data, and whether in-person payments are native or bolt-on partnerships.
Recurring Billing
Native subscription management, dunning logic, proration, plan management APIs, and whether recurring billing is a first-class feature or afterthought.
Global Reach
Number of countries with local acquiring, supported currencies, local payment methods (iDEAL, Boleto, etc.), and cross-border fee structures.
Customer Support
Dedicated ISV/partner support channels, account management quality, SLA responsiveness, and whether support scales with your integration complexity.
What we don't score
Signal discipline matters more than coverage. These axes either aren't durable, don't translate to ISV fit, or aren't reproducible — so they sit outside the framework.
UI aesthetics
Dashboard look-and-feel changes on a quarterly cadence and varies by user role. Not a durable evaluation axis.
G2 / Capterra review counts
Single-merchant reviews don't translate to ISV fit. A platform can have 5-star merchant reviews and a weak ISV partner program.
Brand recognition
Familiarity isn't capability. Name-brand processors frequently score mid-range on ISV-specific criteria.
Sales-led pricing promises
We score published pricing and structures that any ISV can reach. Private custom deals aren't reproducible signal.
Review cadence
Quarterly, plus material-change refresh
All 13 criteria are re-reviewed each quarter. Individual platform scores also update on material change — new PayFac product, pricing restructure, acquisition, or documented outage patterns. The review date appears on each comparison page.
Framework last revised: 2026-04-13
Editorial disclosure
No paid placement, ever
Scores are based on public documentation, API references, pricing pages, and ISV partner program materials. No platform has paid for placement, higher scores, or editorial influence. Referral relationships — where they exist — are disclosed on the individual page and have zero influence on the score.
Frequently asked questions
Why 13 criteria specifically?
The 13 cover the durable decision surface ISVs actually hit during platform selection — integration, commercial, and operational. Fewer criteria hide real gaps inside rollup scores; more create false precision. The categories (Technical, Commercial, Operational) group them for scanning, but each criterion is scored independently.
Are the scores weighted?
No — every criterion is equal-weight in the raw score. That's deliberate. ISV priorities vary widely: a vertical SaaS with $5M processing volume cares more about PayFac Options and Revenue Sharing than a horizontal B2B tool that mainly needs API quality. Use the criterion-level scores to weight by your own priorities, not the rollup.
How often are scores updated?
Scores are reviewed quarterly. Individual comparisons are also refreshed when a platform ships a material change — new PayFac product, pricing restructuring, acquisition, or documented outage patterns. The review date appears on each comparison page.
How do you handle information you can't verify?
When a capability is ambiguous, undocumented, or only available under NDA, we note it in the comparison and score conservatively toward the middle of the rubric. We don't invent capabilities from marketing copy, and we flag unverifiable claims rather than rewarding them.
What if I disagree with a score?
Tell us. If a platform has shipped something that changes the evaluation, or if documentation has moved and we're scoring stale material, we'll update — with a visible changelog. The goal is accurate scoring, not defending a prior call.
Do you take money from platforms?
No. No platform has paid for placement, higher scores, editorial influence, or removal of criticism. The site monetizes through a referral relationship with a small number of providers, disclosed per-page, and referral status has zero influence on the score.
Have a criterion we should add — or a score to challenge?
The framework evolves with ISV practice. Share what's missing, what's mis-weighted, or where a score looks stale — we respond to every note.
Send methodology feedback