The payments vendor decision that defines your next decade

Payment infrastructure decisions made today will help define your competitive position for years to come. New research from Totavi, commissioned by Marqeta, examined several scaled fintech companies and found a pattern that should concern every strategic leader: 91% of surveyed companies switched processors or vendors at least once as they scaled, citing control issues, product delays, or outages.

These weren't simple operational improvements. They were strategic pivots forced by vendor constraints that were limiting their ability to compete.

Vendor limitations don't just slow down your development team. They also determine what products you can offer and how quickly you can respond to market opportunities.

For years, one company in our research operated with "one hand behind [their] back" while building alternatives to vendors whose rigid restrictions made their products less appealing for customers. One company's initial vendor choice had inflexible features, leading to poor market uptake. Only after changing to a more flexible vendor were they able to tailor features to improve appeal. 

And what happens when you do decide to switch vendors? According to those surveyed, 70% of migrations took two to three times longer than anticipated. Over 50% of companies reported vendor-related delays directly blocking revenue-generating product launches.

The research revealed a common pattern in how vendor strategies evolved: companies typically experienced rapid vendor proliferation in years 3-4 as they added specialized solutions for each new product, followed by years 5+ spent consolidating or migrating to reduce complexity. Years spent managing vendor complexity that could have been dedicated to developing competitive differentiation.

64% of companies surveyed wished they had either delayed launch until their payment infrastructure was properly built, or chosen more comprehensive platforms from day one. 

Here's where it gets counterintuitive: 73% of companies transitioned away from full-stack vendors toward specialized solutions, seeking greater control over their technology stack. But the research found that this perceived increase in control actually came at the cost of operational complexity that limited strategic flexibility. 

Why? Because every new feature required coordination across multiple systems. Every market opportunity demanded evaluating whether existing vendor capabilities could support it. Integration complexity slowed competitive responses that should have been determined by strategic decision-making, not technical constraints.  

For one surveyed company, the decision to internalize core processing consumed roughly 50% of their engineering resources for an extended period. While they gained technical control, they also lost strategic velocity during a phase when competitors were launching new products and capturing market segments.

As one executive described it, fragmented multi-vendor setups introduce integration "taxes" that can feel like "death by a thousand API calls" when systems don't natively connect.

100% of companies prioritized rapid deployment when initially launching. But that initial speed advantage diminishes if vendor constraints then limit your ability to iterate, expand to new markets, or respond to competitive threats.

Geographic expansion often requires new banking partners and regulatory capabilities in each region. This can result in split technology stacks by region, creating duplication of effort and inconsistent platforms that multiply complexity for companies managing multiple separate vendor relationships.

Vendor-related outages don't only cause transaction losses. They also damage customer trust and overall reputation in ways that can affect competitive positioning much further down the line.

One digital bank's vendor-related service disruption eroded customer trust, affecting their market positioning long after the technical issues were resolved. The reality is, your customers won't care that it was your vendor's fault. They’ll care that their money wasn't accessible when they needed it.

In competitive markets where customer trust determines market share, vendor reliability becomes brand reliability. Companies whose payment infrastructure creates customer friction find themselves at a long-term disadvantage against competitors offering seamless experiences, regardless of other product advantages.

You can have the best product features, the slickest interface, and the most innovative business model. None of it matters if your payment infrastructure creates experiences that chip away at customer trust.

100% of respondents framed total cost of ownership (TCO) as more than pricing, often citing engineering cost, legal risk, and migration complexity as more material than per-transaction fees. More than half mentioned that vendor-related delays had blocked or cost them revenue-generating product launches.

Companies that fragmented infrastructure across multiple vendors spent increasing portions of leadership attention and engineering resources on managing complexity, rather than building competitive differentiation. The operational overhead of multi-vendor strategies doesn't just cost money; it consumes the strategic focus you need to respond to market opportunities.

While 82% preferred best-of-breed solutions in theory, 64% wished they had chosen more comprehensive platforms from day one. As noted in the report, single-vendor approaches can help lower TCO by cutting down on labor and maintenance costs. From simplifying integration to fewer internal resources spent managing vendors, the initial higher investment often delivers better results over time.

Even when companies recognize the need to change vendors, significant barriers often prevent or delay transitions. As one surveyed executive put it, switching a core processor was "hugely difficult" and "highly risky." Resource constraints are another major barrier. Building and migrating to new platforms can take up significant engineering resources for long periods of time. Another respondent added that many companies stay with their chosen platform "because it's too difficult" to change, hoping their provider keeps up.

Only once the pain of staying truly exceeds the pain of switching will companies often make the leap to undertake major vendor changes.

Your payment infrastructure can either help support or limit your competitive position for years to come. Making a decision that serves your business now and in the future could save you significant time, money, and organizational effort on vendor consolidation and migrations.

The companies in our research learned these lessons through years of building, migrating, and rebuilding. Their experience offers a roadmap for avoiding the same costly mistakes.

Ready to build payment infrastructure as a competitive advantage rather than an operational constraint? Download the full report to access insights that can help you build payment infrastructure as a competitive advantage, rather than an operational constraint.