
Payment Orchestration: Market Dynamics And Trends
The acceleration of e-commerce is creating a greater need for payment connectivity
Payment orchestration encompasses approaches targeted at enhancing the reach, adaptability and performance of a multi-processor payments stack (e.g., using more than one payment processor). Once limited to only the biggest and most sophisticated global merchants with large in-house payments teams, dozens of vendors have emerged in recent years to help merchants outsource many if not all of the tasks associated with payment orchestration.
Vendors in this category offer services such as payment credential vaulting and tokenization, transaction routing, consolidated reporting, prebuilt gateway integrations, rules engines, optimizers (e.g., 3-D Secure, network tokens), and more. As the CTO of a $500M+ beauty retailer in the UK put it to us, payment orchestration platforms "… allow the merchant to create efficiencies by managing and coordinating their payment stack and offering a unified view of their payments estate."
Payment orchestration providers are coming at the opportunity from multiple different angles, including:
Payments are becoming more global, more complex and more strategic. These factors bode well for the opportunity for payment orchestration. Looking ahead, we see several key trends defining the market.
Recent moves by Stripe and Checkout.com to enable multi-processor support demonstrate that payment service providers are looking to position themselves as more flexible and accommodating suppliers in the eyes of large merchants. A key advantage of this strategy is expanding the market opportunity for their value-added services portfolios, as Stripe has done with Billing and Radar. This creates a larger market opportunity for PSPs to sell certain capabilities as standalone products, especially to enterprises that may not be ready to leave their incumbent processor. This then opens the door to upselling payment processing to those customers down the road. We expect multi-processor support to be offered more widely by PSPs and incumbent processors in coming years.
We believe there could be a larger market opportunity for orchestration beyond payment processing. Adjacent categories such as fraud prevention, digital identity, logistics and open banking are all possible areas where payment orchestration platforms can broaden their role and value for merchants. Spreedly, for example, has already begun moving in this direction with its open payments platform vision.
In recent years there have been some signs of consolidation. The first four notable deals in the space — PayU's acquisition of ZOOZ Mobile (2018), Payoneer's purchase of optile (2019), Checkout.com's reach for ProcessOut (2020) and MangoPay's pickup of WhenThen (2023) — involve payment service providers getting into orchestration. However, TokenEx's acquisition of IXOPAY last April bucks the trend and indicates that other types of buyers aspire to participate more directly in this sector. We anticipate an uptick in payment orchestration M&A between now and the end of the decade given the number of subscale payment orchestration providers that will likely need an exit in the next 24 months. We also anticipate new entrants — PSPs, tokenization vendors and even large IT infrastructure providers — to consider making inroads inorganically by reaching for market leaders.
Payment orchestration providers have a key role to play in helping merchants unify their payments data estate and deliver actionable guidance on their business. This remains a major challenge for many merchants. As the VP of e-commerce at a North American fashion retailer put it to us, "Right now, we don't have good data on how different payment methods are being used. Payment analyses are manual and one-off, leading to challenges identifying opportunities and road map priorities."
Players like Pagos have emerged to address this opportunity directly, but we believe orchestration platforms will have a seat at the table as well. However, this could require orchestration providers to shift to a more modular approach where capabilities like analytics can stand alone independent from their platform. Advancements in areas like generative AI will have an obvious role to play in deepening capabilities in this arena.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
How AI-generated influencers are taking over YouTube
Virtual YouTubers like Bloo promised a new era of entertainment, combining human creativity with AI scalability. But their rapid rise is raising concerns about authenticity and audience trust. Tools like Character-3 make creating these virtual stars faster than ever, blurring the line between real and synthetic. CNBC explores what this means for the future of creators and the business behind them.


Time Business News
4 hours ago
- Time Business News
How to Calculate API Development Cost
APIs (Application Programming Interfaces) are the hidden engines behind today's digital experiences. Whether you're building a fitness app, a sports app, an e-commerce platform, or integrating sports data feeds into a mobile experience, APIs enable seamless functionality across devices and systems. But one of the biggest questions for startups, agencies, and businesses is this: 'How much does it cost to develop an API?' In this guide, we break down how API development costs are calculated, what factors influence them, and how you can budget smartly, especially in the U.S. development market. At its core, an API allows two systems to communicate. Think of it as a waiter taking your order (request) to the kitchen (server) and returning with your food (response). Think of it like a digital handshake between systems—an API takes a request from one software and returns data or functionality from another. API development involves designing, building, securing, testing, and documenting these interfaces so they can work reliably across devices, services, or software. For example: A ride-sharing app using Google Maps API for real-time navigation. A sports data app like Sportbex pulls live scores and match data through a Sports API. A travel website integrates with airline APIs to book flights instantly. Creating these APIs requires planning, coding, testing, documentation, and security—all of which impact cost. API development costs can range from $2,000 to over $75,000, depending on the complexity, features, and team location. A simple API with basic endpoints might cost between $2,000 and $8,000. These are often built quickly and don't require complex integrations. Mid-level APIs, such as those with user authentication or third-party services like Stripe or Google Maps, typically fall in the $10,000 to $25,000 range. For enterprise-grade APIs, such as those used in platforms like Sportbex with real-time data, live updates, and high security, costs can exceed $50,000, especially with U.S.-based developers. Don't forget about ongoing costs like hosting, monitoring, and updates. These can add recurring expenses even after launch. The best way to stay on budget is to clearly define your API requirements and build in phases, starting with core features and scaling over time. Different API types serve different business functions, and each comes with its own development complexity and price tag. Here are some of the most common ones: Used to retrieve and display specific data. Examples: Google Maps API – Location and navigation data – Location and navigation data OpenWeather API – Weather updates – Weather updates News API – Real-time headlines and news feeds 💡 Cost Tip: Data APIs are often inexpensive to integrate but may include third-party usage fees. Deliver real-time sports data API such as live scores, fixtures, live odds, or player stats. Examples: Sportbex API – Real-time sports data and odds for sports platforms – Real-time sports data and odds for sports platforms The Rundown API – Sports odds and live lines – Sports odds and live lines SportsDataIO – Player stats, schedules, and game data 💡 Cost Tip: Sports APIs often require real-time processing and can involve licensing fees, so development and integration costs are higher. Used by platforms for scheduling, hotel bookings, or travel reservations. Examples: API – Hotel availability and booking – Hotel availability and booking Amadeus API – Flight, hotel, and rental reservations – Flight, hotel, and rental reservations Calendly API – Online meeting scheduling 💡 Cost Tip: These require user authentication, calendar sync, and secure data handling, making them more expensive to build. Enable secure digital payments. Examples: Stripe API, PayPal API, Square API 💡 Cost Tip: Strong security and compliance (e.g., PCI-DSS) are necessary, driving up costs. Facilitate content sharing, social login, and real-time content pulls. Examples: Facebook Graph API Instagram Basic Display API Twitter API 💡 Cost Tip: Many are free to use, but handling rate limits and privacy rules add dev complexity. The cost of building an API can vary dramatically depending on a few key factors: Simple APIs (e.g., retrieving weather data): Low development time and cost (e.g., retrieving weather data): Low development time and cost Complex APIs (e.g., with authentication, third-party integrations, real-time data): Higher development effort U.S.-based developers typically charge $80–$200/hour typically charge $80–$200/hour Offshore developers (India, Eastern Europe) may charge $25–$60/hour (India, Eastern Europe) may charge $25–$60/hour Hybrid teams (offshore + onshore) are increasingly popular for cost control Internal APIs (used only within your system) are simpler (used only within your system) are simpler Partner or public APIs require stricter security, documentation, and scalability The programming language, framework, and infrastructure used ( Python, .NET, etc.) can impact cost—some stacks are quicker to develop in than others. APIs often handle sensitive data. Implementing OAuth, encryption, rate limiting, and other security features adds to the cost but is non-negotiable in most U.S. industries. A good API must be well-documented for developers to use it effectively. Testing (unit, integration, load testing) ensures it works under real-world conditions. Ongoing costs like API gateways, cloud hosting (AWS/GCP), monitoring, and versioning are often overlooked in initial budgets. Here's a simple way to estimate your API development budget: Define Your Scope Number of endpoints Features (authentication, throttling, analytics, etc.) Estimate Time per Phase Planning & Design Development Testing Documentation Deployment Choose Your Team or Partner Multiply estimated hours by hourly rates based on your developer's location Add Ongoing Costs Cloud hosting, monitoring, support, and version updates Include a Buffer Add 10–20% to your estimate to account for scope creep or unexpected changes API Type Hours (Est.) U.S. Cost Range Basic API 20–40 hrs $2,000 – $8,000 Mid-level API 80–150 hrs $10,000 – $25,000 Enterprise API 250–400+ hrs $40,000 – $75,000+ Note: These are estimates for U.S. development teams in 2025 and can vary widely depending on scope and complexity. If you're budget-conscious, here are some smart strategies to cut costs without sacrificing quality: Reuse existing third-party APIs when possible (e.g., Google, Sportbex, Stripe) Build a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) first, then scale Use open-source frameworks and libraries Hire hybrid teams to balance expertise and cost Prioritize good documentation to reduce future dev costs API development is a foundational investment for any modern digital application development project. Whether you're creating a simple data service or a complex, scalable platform, understanding the factors that influence cost—like complexity, integrations, team structure, and maintenance—is essential for planning effectively. By breaking down your project into clear phases, setting realistic expectations, and working with experienced developers, you can ensure that your API is not only cost-effective but also reliable and future-proof. Take the time to define your goals up front, and you'll save both time and money down the road while building an API that truly supports your application development strategy and long-term business growth. A basic API with limited functionality and a few endpoints typically costs between $2,000 and $8,000, depending on the developer's location and experience. Key factors include project complexity, number of endpoints, third-party integrations, security requirements, and whether the team is in-house, freelance, or agency-based. Development time can range from a few days for simple APIs to several months for complex systems. On average, medium-complexity APIs take 3–6 weeks. Yes. You should plan for ongoing expenses, such as cloud hosting, monitoring, bug fixes, security updates, and version upgrades. These can be monthly or annual costs. Absolutely. Cost-saving strategies include: Starting with an MVP version of the API Using open-source tools and frameworks Reusing existing APIs Working with hybrid or offshore teams TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
Rigetti vs. D-Wave: Which Quantum Computing Stock Has Better Prospects?
As quantum computing evolves from theory to commercialization, two distinct visions are emerging. Rigetti Computing RGTI and D-Wave Quantum Inc. QBTS represent divergent paths toward unlocking quantum advantage. Rigetti focuses on gate-based quantum systems, emphasizing modular superconducting qubit architectures for universal quantum computing. In contrast, D-Wave pioneers quantum annealing, a near-term, optimization-first approach that is already being used in real-world applications. Both companies are advancing quantum adoption through innovation, strategic partnerships, and platform accessibility. Yet their technological bets, business models, and scaling roadmaps differ sharply. This faceoff compares Rigetti and D-Wave in terms of technology, commercial strategy, and long-term growth prospects, helping investors determine which stock better aligns with the future of quantum computing. Shares of Rigetti have plunged 22.3%, while QBTS stock has gained 74.2% in the year-to-date period. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research From a valuation standpoint, RGTI looks slightly more attractive than QBTS. According to the price-to-book ratio, Rigetti's shares currently trade at 16.43, which is lower than D-Wave's 18.82. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Rigetti is building universal, gate-based quantum computers using superconducting qubits, currently operating the 84-qubit Ankaa-3 system with 99.5% two-qubit fidelity. Its modular architecture enables future chip interconnectivity, while its AI-assisted calibration and proprietary ABAA fabrication process aim to reduce errors and scale up qubit count. Rigetti aims to launch a 108-qubit system by late 2025, with a focus on long-term applications in machine learning, optimization, and materials science. D-Wave's quantum annealing systems are specialized for solving complex optimization problems. Its Advantage2 processor supports over 5,000 qubits, with the company now introducing gate-model quantum capabilities as part of a hybrid roadmap. While annealing is not universal, it is commercially available today, with enterprise use cases in logistics, supply chains, and finance. D-Wave's emphasis is on quantum-hybrid workflows that integrate classical solvers with quantum accelerators. Rigetti operates as a niche hardware innovator, focusing on the development of universal gate-based quantum processors. Its vertically integrated model allows Rigetti to control every aspect of quantum chip design, fabrication, testing, and deployment through its Fab-1 facility. Revenue is primarily generated through its Quantum Cloud Services (QCS) platform, which offers researchers and developers direct access to Rigetti's systems via integrations with Amazon Braket and Microsoft Azure Quantum. Rigetti also partners with government labs, universities, and select enterprises in long-term R&D collaborations. While its customer base is narrower, the company positions itself as a highly specialized enabler for those looking to experiment and build upon modular, gate-based systems. Its business model is long-term by nature, dependent on scientific breakthroughs and hardware scaling milestones rather than immediate commercial wins. D-Wave, in contrast, positions itself as a solution-oriented service provider. Its model emphasizes accessibility and near-term application of quantum technology through its Leap quantum cloud platform, which supports both quantum annealing and hybrid quantum-classical solutions. Unlike Rigetti, D-Wave's revenue streams are more diversified, including quantum application consulting, enterprise contracts, and platform subscriptions. The company targets large-scale industries, including logistics, automotive, aerospace, and finance, by offering ready-to-deploy quantum optimization solutions that seamlessly integrate into existing workflows. Notably, D-Wave already counts major clients like Volkswagen, Mastercard, and Lockheed Martin, validating its commercial-first approach. While its quantum annealing model isn't universal, it provides tangible value today, making its business model more usage-driven and enterprise-focused compared to Rigetti's research-driven path. Rigetti's growth hinges on advancing hardware scalability, doubling qubit counts, and improving fidelity through AI-assisted system calibration and fabrication improvements. The company's $250M Quanta partnership aims to boost chip production and cloud-based access. Rigetti is also increasingly leaning into hybrid workflows and AI integration to attract broader developer communities. D-Wave is expanding its customer base and hybrid capabilities while building toward a universal gate-based system to complement its annealing core. Its growth strategy includes government collaborations, quantum application consulting, and expanding enterprise use cases for its Leap platform. While near-term revenue is driven by annealing, its move toward gate-based systems signals a strategic pivot to stay relevant in future quantum benchmarks. The Zacks Consensus Estimate for RGTI's 2025 sales implies a year-over-year decline of 18.63%. For 2025, the loss per share is projected to be 5 cents compared with 36 cents a year ago. The earnings estimates have been trending upward over the past 60 days. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research The Zacks Consensus Estimate for QBTS' 2025 sales and earnings implies year-over-year growth of 183.4% and 72%, respectively. The earnings estimates have been trending upward over the past 60 days. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Both Rigetti and D-Wave are pioneering distinct approaches in the quantum computing race—one focusing on gate-based universality, the other delivering real-world value through quantum annealing. Rigetti currently holds a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell), signaling weaker near-term sentiment despite a solid Growth Score of 'B' that reflects its technical roadmap and potential upside. D-Wave, by contrast, carries a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) and a Growth Score of 'C', underpinned by strong sales momentum and a diversified commercial strategy. You can see the complete list of today's Zacks #1 Rank (Strong Buy) stocks here. While Rigetti remains a promising deep-tech innovator targeting long-term breakthroughs, D-Wave's enterprise traction, revenue visibility, and hybrid quantum roadmap position it as the more favorable pick for investors seeking exposure to quantum computing with nearer-term commercial potential. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Rigetti Computing, Inc. (RGTI) : Free Stock Analysis Report D-Wave Quantum Inc. (QBTS) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data