If you built a high-performance engine but only installed several of the components it needed to run, you wouldn’t be surprised if it failed to start. That’s roughly the situation facing many American companies that have invested in payment orchestration. They’ve started to build but stopped in the middle.
Payment orchestration refers to the technology layer that connects a business to multiple payment processors and manages how transactions are routed, retried and recovered. A fully built orchestration system includes five core capabilities:
- Automated dynamic routing (i.e., directing each transaction to the most likely processor to approve it)
- Frequent updates to that routing logic
- Failover and redundancy (a backup path when the primary processor fails)
- Internal control over payment tokens (the secure credentials that identify a customer’s payment method)
- The ability to add new payment methods without a major technical overhaul
Companies that deploy all five capabilities are 11 times as likely to report checkout conversion gains of 2% or more compared to those with just one or two capabilities. Yet only a small fraction of companies has reached that threshold. Most are still building, and those with three or four capabilities are in some ways facing the greatest operational challenges. In short, orchestration only pays off when the full system is in place. Adding capabilities bit by bit doesn’t improve merchant checkout rates.
These are just some of the findings in this edition of The Orchestration Advantage, a PYMNTS Intelligence exclusive created in collaboration with Spreedly. This edition is based on a survey of 110 U.S.-based companies with annual revenue of $10 million or more, fielded from March 16–31, 2026.
The Payment Orchestration Advantage
Companies deploying all five payment orchestration capabilities are up to 11 times as likely to report checkout conversion gains of 2% or more.
Payment orchestration is often treated as a series of independent upgrades. A company might add routing automation this quarter and failover capabilities next year. Yet that piecemeal approach comes at a cost. Companies that have deployed all five orchestration capabilities don’t simply perform a little better here or there. They lead in every conversion outcome tracked, with margins ranging from two to 11 times.
The largest gap appears in checkout completion gains. Among companies with all five capabilities, 78% report completion gains of 2% or more, which is about 11 times the 7% share of companies with just one or two capabilities that do the same. For approval rates (meaning payments that processors accept), 69% of all five-capability companies report rates of 97% or higher, compared to 32% of those with one or two capabilities. Those with all five capabilities also outperform those with one or two in recovery of declined payments and same-day issue resolution.
The advantage comes from completing the orchestration stack, not adding capabilities one by one.
It’s not as if performance meaningfully improves with each capability added. In this sample, the gains concentrate among companies with all five. In fact, companies with three or four capabilities sometimes perform even worse than those with one or two. On same-day issue resolution, only 6% of the three-or-four group report success, below the 18% rate for those with just one or two. These partial builders are paying for the complexity they’ve added (more providers, more routing paths, more failure modes) without yet having the automation layer that fully ties the system together. The result is a complex stack that’s harder to manage than a simple one and still not delivering the conversion gains of a complete one.
The five capabilities are interdependent. Routing automation is only as effective as the frequency with which the routing logic is updated. Failover requires redundant processing relationships. Token control shapes whether those relationships can be used. The conversion gap closes only among companies that run all five capabilities.
Complete Orchestration Improves Customer Experience
Full-orchestration companies see the lowest checkout abandonment rates.
Companies with more orchestration capabilities in place believe payments are central to the customer relationship. They are most likely to say that payment performance influences customers’ trust, satisfaction and likelihood of repeat purchases.
Trust shows the widest spread across firms with different degrees of orchestration in place. Among companies with all five capabilities, 81% say payment performance very strongly or extremely influences customer trust. Among those with one or two capabilities, just under half as many, or 39%, say the same. For customer satisfaction, those shares amount to 75% for the all-five group versus 46% for the one-or-two group. Repeat purchase shows the narrowest spread of the three: 44% for the all-five group versus 29% for those with one or two capabilities.
Companies with three or four payment orchestration capabilities in place report the worst abandonment rates.
Payment orchestration capabilities also impact checkout abandonment (the rate at which customers start a payment but don’t complete it due to payment technology-related issues). Among companies with all five capabilities, 16% report abandonment rates of 3% or higher. For those with one or two, 36% do so. Abandonment rates are highest for firms with three or four capabilities in place, at 42%, suggesting that having more capabilities but not yet the full suite increases the challenges.
Again, the middle group performs worse than the bottom. Adding more providers and routing paths without the automation to manage them creates more points of failure.
Those with three or four capabilities implemented also see the most frequent complaints. Most (52%) three-or-four-capability companies report customer complaint rates of 5% or higher, compared to 31% for the all-five group. These firms are seeing negative customer outcomes from their complex but incomplete stacks even before delving into revenue data.
Evidently, incremental progress on orchestration capability isn’t a neutral holding position. Each additional capability adds operational overhead, while the return on that investment only materializes when the build is complete.
The True Cost of Payment Problems
Full payment orchestration lets firms identify the true cost of payment problems, while partial implementation shows only the symptoms.
The completeness of orchestration affects not only payment outcomes but also the ability to spot problems as they arise. Consider how firms with different levels of implementation identify their highest payment-related cost. Among companies with all five capabilities, 34% report lost revenue from abandoned checkouts as the most significant consequence of payment problems. Among companies with just one or two capabilities, only 7% say the same. Those with one or two capabilities name operational delays (32%) and reduced customer satisfaction (18%) instead, outcomes that are real, but that describe the symptom rather than the financial cost.
Operational delays and satisfaction declines are visible, even without sophisticated monitoring infrastructure. Lost revenue from abandoned checkouts requires systems that can track which sessions failed, what payment methods were declined, how often customers didn’t return and what the revenue value of those sessions was. Companies without full orchestration may experience the same checkout failures, but their diagnostic tools aren’t pointing to the precise causes of that revenue loss.
Full orchestration gives companies the visibility to optimize, not just react.
Companies with full orchestration in place also have more complex approaches to authorization. Among these, 38% say their most effective approach to authorization is dynamic routing by issuer and Bank Identification Number (BIN) performance (the practice of routing transactions to the processor most likely to approve a specific card from a specific bank). For companies with one or two capabilities, 0% say the same. Instead, their top answer is account updater services (39%), a useful tool for keeping payment credentials current but a less expansive approach than dynamic routing.
Additionally, companies with all five core capabilities are far better at spotting disruptions. Among these firms, 72% report payment disruptions at least monthly. Only 39% of those with one or two capabilities cite disruptions as frequently. This disparity is consistent with greater monitoring visibility among full-orchestration companies, rather than suggestive of a higher rate of underlying problems. The same disruptions are likely occurring across capability groups; the difference is which companies have the monitoring infrastructure to see them.
Token Control as the Foundation
Token control is what makes payment orchestration work.
Each of the five orchestration capabilities matters, but token control is a structural necessity. That’s because companies’ ownership and management of the payment credentials that identify their customers determine whether the rest of the orchestration stack can deliver.
Payment tokens are opaque stand-ins for card numbers that let merchants charge a customer without holding their actual card number. When the processor owns those tokens, the merchant is bound to that processor for as long as the customer relationship lasts. Switching processors means one of three things: a time-consuming migration project for the merchant, provisioning portable ‘network tokens’ that must be arranged in advance, or—worst case scenario—making the customer re-enter their card details. That last bit of friction defeats the purpose of payment orchestration and negatively impacts the customer relationship.
But if the merchant has token control (or stores the card’s credentials directly), it can route the customer’s payment to any processor without a migration step.
Token control separates orchestration leaders from companies still tied to their processors.
Among companies with all five orchestration capabilities, 22% report full internal token control. For those with three or four capabilities, only 2% do. Among those with one or two capabilities, 0% do. Conversely, 86% of companies with one or two capabilities have minimal or no internal control over their payment tokens, leaving them at the processor’s mercy. Among companies with all five capabilities, 0% are in that position.
Token control separates companies that can route payments freely from those that can only do so within the constraints their processor allows. It also has a clear impact on conversion. Among companies with full internal token control, 88% report checkout completion gains of 2% or more. Among those with minimal or no control, only 13% do. The full-control sample in this survey is small (eight companies), so this figure should be treated as an indication of the direction of the trend rather than a precise measure. Still, the evidence points to the idea that companies that own their tokens can shift transaction volume between processors without interrupting the customer relationship. Companies that don’t own their tokens can’t.
Token control isn’t built independently. It follows the implementation of the rest of the core capabilities.
It’s worth noting that token control doesn’t appear to be something companies pursue on their own. Its concentration among firms with all the other four core capabilities in place suggests it is part of the broader orchestration build, not a standalone investment. Companies that stop short of full orchestration tend to leave tokens in the hands of their payment service provider (PSP). Companies that complete the full build tend to take ownership.
This matters as companies plan where and when to invest in different orchestration capabilities. Token control without the routing infrastructure to use it delivers limited value. The most effective path is building toward all five capabilities together rather than treating token control as an advanced, optional add-on.
The Growing Orchestration Gap
Companies with full payment orchestration in place are pulling ahead and investing now.
The companies at the top of the stack are widening their lead. Among companies with all five core orchestration capabilities, 84% report that their payment authorization and completion success rates improved over the past 12 months. Among companies with one or two capabilities, only 36% report the same improvement.
Similarly, companies with full orchestration are also investing more for the future. Among all five-capability companies, 72% are actively enhancing their orchestration capabilities today, and 100% plan to do so within the next 12 months. For companies with one or two capabilities, just 7% are enhancing today and 43% plan to within 12 months.
Among companies with three or four capabilities, 74% plan to invest in orchestration within 12 months, but only 6% are currently already doing so.
By the time companies with one or two capabilities begin their next investment cycle, the all-five group will have added another year of capability improvements and the conversion gains that come with them. The gap visible in this survey’s 12-month lookback will only continue to grow if the current investment trajectories hold. For companies still in the planning phase, laggard companies are falling further behind firms already delivering measurably better checkout outcomes.
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
This edition of The Orchestration Advantage series, “Complete Payment Orchestration Stacks Boost Revenue and Improve Customer Relationships,” a PYMNTS Intelligence exclusive study in collaboration with Spreedly, is based on a survey of 110 U.S.-based companies with annual revenue of $10 million or more. The survey was conducted from March 16–31, 2026. This report examines how a sample of U.S. companies structure their payment orchestration strategies and how those strategies translate into measurable gains in checkout conversion. This research was independently designed, fielded, analyzed and written by PYMNTS Intelligence. Spreedly provided funding support but exercised no control over methodology, data collection, findings or conclusions.
