The buy now, pay later market is entering a new phase where consumers are treating installment financing as a flexible financial management tool. Instead of relying on a single provider, shoppers are increasingly selecting the provider and payment option that best fit their needs for specific purchases. This shift reflects a growing comfort with the broad concept of fixed payment schedules that offer a clear payoff timeline. The options provide consumers with an alternative to carrying balances on open-ended revolving credit.
Today, 74% of BNPL users report using two or more providers, and the four largest brands’ adoption rates are all within three percentage points of each other. These trends reveal a market defined by consumer choice, product differentiation and intensifying competition rather than by a single dominant player.
These are just some of the findings detailed in “BNPL’s Multi-Provider Moment: Why Shoppers No Longer Pick Just One,” a PYMNTS Intelligence exclusive report. This edition of the Pay Later Ecosystem series is based on 10 surveys of U.S. adults fielded April 2025 through May 2026, with the latest survey drawing from a sample of 2,194 U.S. consumers.
The Rise of Multi-Provider BNPL Use
BNPL users increasingly use multiple providers.
Consumers aren’t just picking one BNPL option and sticking with it. As of May 2026, nearly three-quarters (74%) of BNPL users report having used two or more providers in the past three months. That is up from 68% in April 2025, the first month recorded in the survey series. Forty-nine percent of BNPL users now use two or three providers, while 25% use four or more.
The share of BNPL users leveraging multiple providers has held in the low-to-mid 70% range since late 2025. This suggests that the shift is a new normal rather than a short-term blip.1
While the survey doesn’t ask why consumers are using multiple providers, one possible explanation is that, in an era of elevated interest rates, consumers appear to be thinking about debt more broadly. A revolving credit card balance can carry forward indefinitely, with no fixed end date. A BNPL plan, by contrast, comes with a defined number of payments and a set payoff date. Using several BNPL plans at once, each on its own fixed schedule, may let shoppers keep more of their spending on predictable terms instead of concentrating it within an open-ended line of credit.
A Crowded BNPL Market
In the race to win over BNPL users, the top four providers are neck and neck.
There’s no clear winner right now in the BNPL space. Affirm leads, with 45% of all U.S. consumers using BNPL turning to that provider, but only by the slimmest of margins. Three other pure-play BNPL providers trail very closely behind: Klarna (used by 44% of consumers tapping BNPL products), PayPal Pay Later (44%) and Afterpay (42%).
After that, there’s a sharp drop. Eighteen percent of BNPL users use Shop Pay Installments, which runs on Affirm’s infrastructure. Seventeen percent use Sezzle, 12% use Uplift, 10% use Quadpay/Zip, 9% use Zebit and 8% use Splitit. Eight other providers, including FuturePay, Sunbit, Progressive Leasing and consumers’ own banks or credit unions, were each tapped by 8% or fewer of BNPL users.
The top four providers each offer different terms.
Consumers’ use of multiple providers is likely due in part to differences in how the leading players structure their products.
Affirm offers the widest range of options: three short-term, interest-free options (Pay in 2, Pay in 30 and Pay in 4) alongside longer-term plans running from three months to five years at 0% to 36% annual percentage rate (APR). Loans can be up to $30,000. The company charges no fees and reports payment activity to Experian and TransUnion.
Klarna offers two short-term products: a 30-day pay-in-full option up to $1,000, and a Pay in 4 plan from $35 to $2,000. The company also offers financing from six months to two years at 0% to 35.99% APR for amounts starting at $299 and running up to $10,000. Klarna charges a late fee of up to $7, capped at 25% of the purchase.
PayPal offers two Pay Later products, Pay in 4 and Pay Monthly. Pay in 4 is available online only and can be used for purchases between $30 and $1,500. Pay Monthly is available online and in-store for purchases between $49 and $10,000, with terms of three, six, 12 or 24 months and APRs between 9.99% and 35.99%.
Afterpay offers one short-term product, a Pay in 4 plan. This plan covers purchases up to $5,000 both online and in-store but carries the highest Pay in 4 late fee of the group, up to 25%. The company also offers longer financing with terms of three, six, 12 or 24 months, charging 0% to 35.99% APR on amounts from $100 to $20,000.
Given how much these terms vary, it makes practical sense for shoppers to match a given plan to a specific purchase rather than route everything through a single provider. Consumers already comparison shop for goods and services based on price, quality, availability and other criteria, so it makes sense they would comparison shop BNPL providers as well.
The BNPL Leaderboard Tightens
PayPal Pay Later loses its lead as rivals gain ground.
In April 2025, PayPal Pay Later was the clear front-runner, used by 49% of BNPL users. That placed the option double-digit percentage points ahead of Klarna and Afterpay (each at 33%) and Affirm (36%).
Now, however, PayPal Pay Later’s share has fallen to 44% of BNPL users, a 10% decline over barely more than a year. Over the same April 2025 to May 2026 period, Klarna’s share rose to 44%, a 34% gain, the largest leap of the four. Afterpay increased to 42%, up 27%, and Affirm rose to 45%, up 25%, earning it the top spot. If this were a horse race, PayPal Pay Later broke out of the gate well ahead of the field in April 2025. Then, the rest of the pack closed the gap steadily over the last year, now matching PayPal stride for stride.
Among smaller BNPL players, several gained consumer share, but many saw declines. Sezzle grew from 12% of BNPL users to 17% from April 2025 to May 2026, a 43% increase and the largest gain of any provider tracked. Over the same period, Quadpay/Zip rose 11%, from 8.7% to 10.4%, and Uplift climbed 15%, from 10.4% to 11.6%.
The steepest decline came from consumers’ using BNPL options offered by their banks or credit unions, which plunged from 11% to 6%, a 44% drop. FuturePay dropped from 10% to 8% (down 20%), Zebit from 10% to 9% (down 10%), Splitit from 9.9% to 7.8% (down 20%), Sunbit from 8.3% to 7.2% (down 15%), and Shop Pay Installments from 18.9% to 18.0% (down 5%). Four’s share fell by 8%.2
For the first time since the series began, no BNPL provider can call itself the clear leader. The next survey wave could hand that title to any of the top four.
Read More
PYMNTS Intelligence is the leading provider of information on the consumer trends driving innovation in consumer finance, digital payments and financial inclusion. To stay up to date, subscribe to our newsletters and read our in-depth reports.
Methodology
“BNPL’s Multi-Provider Moment: Why Shoppers No Longer Pick Just One” is the latest installment of the Pay Later Ecosystem series, a PYMNTS Intelligence exclusive series. The report draws on data from ten survey waves of U.S. adult consumers fielded April 2025 through May 2026. The series launched in April 2025, and monthly data collection began in September 2025. The May 2026 wave surveyed 2,194 consumers. Because each wave samples consumers independently rather than following the same respondents over time, the figures reported across waves reflect shifting shares of the population, not tracked changes among the same individuals.
This report examines consumer use of BNPL, credit card installment plans and other pay later options across generational cohorts, household income levels, financial lifestyles and purchase types. The sample was balanced to match the U.S. adult population by age, gender, education and income.
1. The monthly sample sizes behind these figures run a few hundred respondents, so these figures are best read as directional.↩
2. These changes are drawn from monthly sample bases of only a few hundred respondents and thus should be treated as directional rather than precise.↩
