Why the Companies Winning at Payments Aren’t Adding Providers

Payments are now part of the customer experience layer, the uptime layer and the revenue operations layer. That means they can no longer be managed only as finance infrastructure.

Findings in “The Orchestration Advantage: How Routing Architecture Shapes Payments Performance,” a PYMNTS Intelligence and Spreedly collaboration, reveal that the next phase of payments performance looks more and more like site reliability engineering. The question is not simply which providers a company has connected to its stack but whether the business can observe payment performance in real time, diagnose where revenue is failing, reroute transactions intelligently and update rules while the customer is still trying to buy.

That distinction matters because payments have become too fast, embedded and customer-facing to be managed as a periodic vendor review. A checkout failure is not an abstract infrastructure issue. It is a lost sale, a support ticket, a brand problem and, increasingly, a signal that the business does not know how its own revenue system is performing.

The New Checkout Standard Is Operational, Not Architectural

The payment industry has largely absorbed the lesson that single-provider dependency is risky. Most companies now have some form of failover or backup routing in place. Yet the performance gap remains wide. PYMNTS Intelligence found that 89% of companies have implemented failover systems, but only 47% achieve transaction approval rates above 97% in a typical month.

That gap reveals the limits of treating orchestration as a static architecture project. A backup provider does not help much if the company cannot detect the failure quickly, determine whether the issue is provider-specific, issuer-specific or rail-specific, and move traffic automatically. The mere existence of redundancy is not the same thing as resilience.

The deeper issue is that many payment operations remain manually managed. Many companies have built payment systems with modern components but legacy operating habits. The tools may be connected, but the response model is still human paced. The report found that more than half of firms surveyed still route payment transactions manually, and only a quarter track first-attempt authorization rates and optimize retry logic, and 68% still rely on manual intervention to switch providers during outages. Only 39% surveyed reroute transactions automatically.

Read the report: The Orchestration Advantage: How Routing Architecture Shapes Payments Performance

The highest-performing payment organizations are not just adding processors; they are instrumenting the payment flow. They monitor authorization performance by provider, issuer, geography, card type, payment method and transaction context. They understand where declines are recoverable and where retrying creates cost or customer friction. They can change routing logic when conditions change.

The report makes that shift visible. Among companies with all five core orchestration capabilities in place, 84% have implemented real-time payment KPI monitoring, compared with 39% of those with only one or two capabilities. Dynamic routing by issuer or BIN reaches 62% among the highest-capability group, while it is absent among the lowest-capability group.

The companies enjoying a competitive edge are not just better connected. They are better informed. PYMNTS Intelligence found that the highest-capability firms outperform lower-capability peers across authorization, retry logic, peak traffic consistency, response speed, checkout friction and cross-channel payment consistency.

Once payments are monitored in real time, routing stops being a technical afterthought and becomes a revenue function. The decision of where to send a transaction can determine whether it is approved, declined, retried, delayed or abandoned. The same customer, card and basket can produce different outcomes depending on the routing path.