The true cost of multi-vendor payment systems

Independent research reveals 91% of scaled fintechs switched payment vendors due to control issues. Learn why 64% wish they chose unified infrastructure first.
Marqeta

A letter from Todd Pollak, Chief Revenue Officer

The payments infrastructure decisions enterprises make today will determine their competitive position for the next decade. Yet these pivotal decisions are often made under pressure and with limited guidance.
That's why we looked to the companies who've already navigated this journey, fintech pioneers who built payment infrastructure from scratch and learned lessons along the way. While your enterprise may not be a fintech company, the infrastructure challenges are remarkably similar: vendor selection, platform strategy, build vs. buy decisions, and the hidden costs of fragmentation.
To uncover how successful companies tackle these critical decisions, we reflected on our extensive experience with our larger customers and commissioned independent research from Totavi. The study examined the vendor strategies of eleven fintech companies that successfully scaled through complex infrastructure challenges—challenges that every payment-forward enterprise now faces.
Strategic planning, regulatory frameworks, and operating models may differ across the US, Europe, and other markets, but the core challenges for enterprises remain the same. Businesses everywhere must navigate complexity, scale their infrastructure, and choose partners capable of supporting growth locally and across multiple regions.
The findings revealed clear patterns that go beyond specific industries, offering a valuable roadmap for enterprises looking to build or expand their payments capabilities.
What surprised me most wasn't the frequency of vendor changes (91% of the companies we surveyed switched providers as they scaled), but the consistent underestimation of the true costs across every organization that participated in this research.
91% of companies switched
The companies that ultimately thrived were those that understood the total cost of ownership from the very beginning. The proof: 15 of our top 20 customers have expanded with us as they've scaled, 40% into multiple geographies. The reason? We understood the full scope of their infrastructure needs.
I hope this research helps enterprises avoid the common pitfalls that can hinder growth and create more informed infrastructure investments that create lasting competitive advantage.
Todd Pollak, Chief Revenue Officer



Executive summary

This report draws on insights from 11 fintech companies that have successfully scaled modern payment infrastructure. While these companies are digital-native fintechs, the lessons are directly applicable to any enterprise building or modernizing payment capabilities, whether you're a traditional financial institution, retailer, platform company, or any organization where payments are becoming core to your business model.
The fintech companies we studied faced the same fundamental questions every enterprise now confronts: build or buy? Single vendor or best-of-breed? How much control vs. how much complexity? Their experiences—both successes and costly mistakes—provide a valuable playbook for enterprise decision-makers.

The multi-vendor mirage

Companies often underestimate the operational burden and hidden costs of multi-vendor strategies, mistakenly believing they achieve cost savings and flexibility.
  • 100% of companies viewed fallback capabilities and modularity as critical for long-term resilience, but few were able to implement this cleanly in a multi-vendor approach
  • While 82% of companies preferred best-of-breed solutions in theory, 64% later wished they had delayed launch until their infrastructure was built or abstracted their processors from day one
82% of companies

The true cost of fragmentation

Every company framed total cost of ownership (TCO) as going beyond contract pricing, citing engineering cost, legal risk, and operational overhead as more material than per-transaction fees. 
  • 91% of companies switched processors or vendors at least once as they scaled, citing control, product delays, or outages
  • 70% reported migrations taking two to three times longer than anticipated, leading directly to delayed product launches and lost revenue opportunities
70% reported migrations

The control paradox

Companies aiming for increased technical control by moving toward specialized or in-house solutions frequently faced unexpected complexity, resulting in reduced operational agility and higher resource demands. 
  • A prominent digital bank, after a vendor-related outage, internalized core processing to gain control but acknowledged the move consumed roughly 50% of their engineering resources for an extended period
  • Fragmented multi-vendor setups introduce integration "taxes," described by one executive as "death by a thousand API calls" when systems don't natively connect
Death by a thousand API calls

Key decision factors

  • Speed to Market: 100% of companies prioritized rapid deployment and proven vendor reliability above cost considerations when initially launching 
  • Integration Simplicity: Ease of integration directly affects operational agility. Vendors with intuitive APIs and comprehensive developer support are strongly favored
  • Proven Capabilities: Companies prefer established partners with track records, especially for regulated activities. Word-of-mouth and prior outcomes inform initial partner choice
  • Cost and Economics: While less important than speed or quality initially, companies often operate on thin margins, making cost flexibility and transparency essential
  • Flexibility and Features: Vendor flexibility is critical as product offerings evolve
Trust and Compliance: A vendor's compliance track record and stability are meaningful deciding factors 



Decision criteria and initial partner selection

Companies typically face a build-vs-buy dilemma in their early stages. Most choose to "buy" (partner with) rather than build for non-core infrastructure at launch, allowing them to focus on product-market fit. This strategy means initial partner selection is critical, and several common criteria emerged across companies:
Speed to market: Perhaps the most frequently cited factor is how quickly a vendor can enable the company to launch a product."When we are launching a new product, the number one variable that we pick is time to market," said the CEO of one company. 
Proven capability and references: Many companies prefer an established partner with a track record, especially for regulated activities. Early on, companies lacked in-house expertise in these complex domains, so they sought vendors "who knew what they were doing" and had other successful programs running. Word-of-mouth and prior outcomes inform initial partner choice.
Ease of integration: Companies assess how developer-friendly and flexible a vendor's technology is. Modern APIs and good developer support can tilt the decision. 
Cost and economics: Cost is important but, many executives rank it below speed and quality "Cost matters, but that's second," said the CEO of one company. While cost considerations factor into initial vendor selection, the long-term financial implications often become clear only after companies begin scaling their operations.



Total cost of ownership (TCO) considerations

As companies in the study discovered, the true financial impact of vendor decisions extends far beyond initial contract terms. Managing total cost of ownership is a continual challenge. Many companies found areas where efficiencies were realized, as well as areas where cost projections fell short.

Efficiency realizations:

Economies of scale: An executive noted that consolidating debit and credit card processing with the same vendor usually "yields better pricing," because companies can commit more volume to one partner.  As companies grew, those that stuck with a primary platform often benefited from volume-based cost reductions. For example, a company that continued to process all transactions through one processor saw its per-transaction fees decrease as volumes hit negotiated tiers. By concentrating volumes, they had more leverage to negotiate down unit costs. In this way, a single-vendor strategy for multiple products potentially realizes cost efficiencies – bundling services might unlock discounts or lower the overhead of managing separate contracts
Operational efficiency: Another efficiency can come from vendor-managed services that reduce internal headcount needs. For instance, using a processor that also offers integrated dispute management or customer service tools could save on hiring a larger operations team. Some companies in the study leaned on their partners for a wide array of support. While this can sometimes be costlier in direct vendor fees, it may still be cheaper TCO when considering you don't have to build that capability in-house. One COO mentioned that in their earlier days, they weren't a "tech company" and lacked the engineers to build certain systems, so using the vendor's solution, even if not perfectly cost-efficient, was the right decision.

Common cost projection failures:

  • Integration and maintenance costs: Several firms underestimated developer time spent on keeping integrations running, handling edge cases, and manual work for things that weren't fully automated. One team described "death by a thousand API calls" – each additional integration adding unseen costs in API usage, monitoring, and reconciliation.
  • Vendor overlap and redundancy: In some cases, companies paid for functionalities from multiple vendors that overlapped, resulting in wasted spend. One company reflected that they had "four separate contractors" for KYC/fraud across their products, meaning they were essentially paying four times for capabilities that might have been streamlined.
  • Scaling cost surprises: Some providers have cost structures that don't scale favorably. A telling benchmark: traditional core banking systems cost around $3 per account per month for big banks, regardless of usage. For instance, a vendor might charge per-active-user fees that accumulate significantly as you grow the number of users. Companies that didn't negotiate a scalable pricing model upfront sometimes got caught off guard by soaring costs in years 3-5.
The experience vs. cost trade-off: A poignant quote from one CEO: "Shaving costs by trading off the experience is shaving customers… it will come back to bite you." 
Shaving costs



Single vs. multi-vendor stack: TCO trade-offs

A key strategic question is whether to use one integrated platform or multiple specialized vendors, and how that choice affects total cost of ownership. The interviews and cases reveal that there is no one-size-fits-all answer; instead, there are trade-offs in TCO between these approaches that companies must navigate. 
Single-vendor benefits:
Direct and Indirect Cost Savings: Using a single vendor for multiple needs can bring obvious cost benefits: volume discounts, simpler integration, and fewer internal resources managing vendors. One fintech executive commented that they prefer to consolidate vendors, especially when it reduces complexity, noting that having multiple providers inherently "increases contacts, meetings, infrastructure" overhead. 
Unified Customer Experience: A unified platform might make it easier to have a single customer view and consistent experience, which could drive higher customer retention.
Single-vendor risks:
One risk is vendor lock-in with high pricing, unless, as noted before, they had negotiated a scalable pricing model upfront.  If you put all products with one provider, they have a lot of leverage over you once you scale. Initially, you might get a good deal, but down the road, if you have no alternative, the vendor could keep prices high. Some companies found that all-in-one providers were quite expensive on a per-user basis.
Multi-vendor benefits:
Redundancy Options: A multi-vendor strategy could mean that if one vendor fails, others can cover (limiting downtime costs), whereas a single vendor represents a single point of failure, as a consumer banking and lending solution learned in 2019 when its one processor went down, the cost was not just monetary but reputational. 
Multi-vendor risks:
Integration and maintenance costs: On the flip side, the multi-vendor approach incurs integration and maintenance costs, which add to total cost of ownership. If your engineering and ops costs skyrocket due to managing many systems, those could outweigh any savings in vendor fees. This is why some companies, after trying best-of-breed for everything, later pivot to a more consolidated model because the internal cost becomes too high. One neobank's experience is illustrative: they initially had a very modular, in-house plus many vendors approach, and while it gave them flexibility, they eventually confronted the operational strain (hence migrating and simplifying some parts).
Customer Service: A patchwork of systems might lead to more customer service issues (e.g., data mismatches), which costs money to resolve. One company cited having customer info in disparate systems, leading to errors (like an address change not syncing).



Impact on product success and customer adoption

Vendors can significantly influence product success in the market, affecting user adoption rates, growth, and customer satisfaction. The capabilities and limitations of chosen vendors set the boundaries for what companies can offer to customers, at least in the short term. 
Feature limitations: One executive recounted how their initial vendor had rigid restrictions (e.g., a uniform spending limit for all users). This lack of flexibility made their product less appealing to customers and ultimately led to poor uptake. Only after changing to a more flexible vendor could they tailor features to improve the product appeal.
Competitive differentiation: On the flip side, choosing a cutting-edge vendor can enable differentiated features that drive adoption. One interview highlighted how selecting the right vendor allowed one company to offer customizable billing cycles and advanced card options that their previous provider couldn't. 
Reliability impact: Reliability and performance of vendors also impact customer retention and satisfaction. We saw the extreme case where unreliable vendor performance (the outage incident) caused customers to lose trust and even churn – a clear hit to product success. 



Partnership and ecosystem dynamics

As companies expanded their product offerings and scale their user base, the composition of their vendor stack often shifts significantly. Most companies begin with a handful of core partners; typically, a card processor, an issuing bank (for those needing a bank sponsor), maybe a KYC/AML provider, providing just enough to launch their initial product. Over time, however, new needs arise that lead to adding more vendors or changing existing ones. 
Risk and compliance: Risk and compliance functions alone can drive vendor count up. Many fintech companies use external providers for KYC (know-your-customer checks), AML transaction monitoring, fraud detection, etc., especially as they scale and face sophisticated threats. One founder remarked that each of their product lines initially ended up with its own set of compliance vendors, leading to four different vendors just to cover KYC/AML across banking, investing, lending, and credit products. This highlights how, as operations grow in complexity, so do vendor relationships.
Product expansion and roadmap: A common pattern is that each major new product or feature may introduce a new specialist vendor. For instance, a company that starts with a debit card might later add a credit product, which could require a different processor or program manager if the original debit processor doesn't support credit. The CEO of an investment app noted this happened at his company: they launched with a brokerage product on one platform, then added a checking account with a bank/BaaS partner, and later a credit card with yet another partner. Over a few years, they went from a single-platform company to managing three or more key external partners. This proliferation is normal as companies widen their service portfolio to become multi-product platforms.



Evolving scope of partnerships and renewals

When companies find a solid partner, they often try to do more with that partner over time. This can involve expanding the scope of services or negotiating new terms as volumes grow. 
Negotiations and pricing: A company that relaunched its debit card program with a new processor and bank found the combination so effective that they stuck with it for subsequent projects. The executive noted an "inclination to stay with the same vendors for simplicity" after a very positive outcome. As the company's transaction volumes increased, they negotiated better pricing and were offered additional services. Essentially, the vendor became a long-term pillar in their ecosystem.
Renewals: If a vendor proves their value, a company might roll additional needs into their contract. One example is fraud/analytics: a company might initially use their processor just for processing, but later agree to use the processor's analytics add-on instead of buying a separate analytics platform, consolidating that within the renewed contract. This often comes in exchange for volume discounts. The vendor increases share-of-wallet; the company simplifies its stack.
Upgrades: Renewals are a point of leverage to address shortcomings. If a company has been unhappy with some aspect of a vendor but doesn't want to incur the cost of switching, renewal discussions are when they push for improvements. They might ask for upgraded service levels, new features, or pricing concessions. For instance, one company leader managed to get their provider to cut fees by 50% during a renewal negotiation by leveraging their growing scale. Effectively, they told the vendor: we will stay and possibly even give you more business (as we grow or add products), but only if you adjust the economics in our favor.
Overcoming failed partnerships: Some partnerships do not survive to renewal. Failed partnerships are usually evident early. If a vendor consistently underperforms or a product integration fails, companies will start exploring alternatives long before the contract is up. The CEO of a payments app described launching quickly with a vendor that "did not work" – they had to shut down that feature. In such cases, the company either switches providers or temporarily exits that offering. The impact of a mid-stream termination can be high (penalties, lost time), but it can be better than dragging a poor partnership forward.
Multi-sourcing vs. single-sourcing: Another dynamic is multi-sourcing vs. single-sourcing over time. Early on, companies single-source each function (one processor, one bank, etc.). As they grow, some consider adding redundancy – e.g., having two payment processors or two bank partners for resiliency or competitive tension. A few larger companies have indeed split their traffic across multiple processors to mitigate the risk of one going down. However, running dual vendors in parallel is complex, and usually only the largest players attempt it. More commonly, a company will transition from one primary vendor to another (a one-time switch) rather than permanently maintaining two. But in areas like payments, we do see an evolution: a company might introduce a second ACH processor while keeping the first, using one as a backup. 
Geographic expansions:  Globalization also influences vendor dynamics (though most interviewed companies were primarily US-based, the principle applies broadly). If a company expands internationally, it often needs new partner banks or processors in each region due to licensing and network requirements. For example, a US company  entering Europe might need to use a European Banking-as-a-Service platform or obtain an e-money license and partner with a local processor. This means a fintech operating in two regions could easily double its vendor count if it cannot find a single provider operating in both. The operational burden of managing separate stacks in each country can be significant, and some fintech companies choose to hold off on multi-geo expansion to avoid that complexity in the early years.
In summary: The trajectory for partnerships often follows a pattern of expansion, then rationalization. In the first few years, new vendors are added to support new capabilities and markets (expanding the ecosystem). By years 4-5, many companies start to consolidate or streamline (rationalizing the ecosystem), whether by doubling down on the best partners and phasing out the weaker ones, or by negotiating broader deals to simplify management. 
The impact of renewals and extensions is significant. A successful renewal with expanded scope can turn an initial vendor into a long-term strategic partner that grows with the company. Conversely, a non-renewal and switch can mark a pivotal change in direction (as when a company migrates off an incumbent platform to a new one).
One senior executive advised that as a company scales, it should periodically review all major vendor relationships and ask: 
Is this still serving us at our current size and complexity? 
If yes, invest more in that partnership. If not, consider alternatives before simply renewing out of inertia. This deliberate approach prevents the company from being stuck with an outdated solution. It also ensures that the ecosystem of vendors evolves in alignment with the company's evolving strategy, rather than by happenstance.



Barriers to changing vendors today (& migrations)

Even when companies recognize the need to change vendors or bring functions in-house, significant barriers often prevent or delay such transitions. These obstacles span technical, financial, and organizational domains, creating powerful inertia that can keep companies locked into suboptimal relationships far longer than they'd prefer.
Technical and operational risks: As the CTO of one company put it, switching a core payments processor was "hugely difficult" and "highly risky."
Resource constraints: One executive described building and migrating to their in-house platform "absorbed probably 50% of our product and engineering resources" for a long time.
Regulatory scrutiny: Regulatory risk acts as a barrier. Companies handling money operate under regulatory oversight, and a large migration or vendor change can attract scrutiny. They must often notify regulators or get approvals for changes in certain providers (for example, switching a sponsoring bank or core system might require regulatory review). The fear that a migration mishap could lead to compliance issues or penalties makes companies very cautious. One exec noted that as they near going public, "risks matter a little bit more… you focus more on the risk side," meaning big disruptive changes might be avoided in that sensitive period around an IPO or banking license approval.
Contractual barriers: Contractual lock-ins are another barrier. Many vendor agreements are multi-year and have volume or revenue commitments. If a startup signs a 5-year deal with a processor in order to receive superior pricing, they may face steep termination fees or penalties for switching early. Even without formal penalties, there's often the sunk cost mindset if they paid upfront integration fees or if the pricing model assumes a certain volume and leaving early could mean they effectively overpaid in the initial period.
Customer impact: Customer inertia is a subtle but real barrier. Customers get used to how an app works, and any change (like reissued cards, new interfaces due to a vendor switch) can cause friction. Companies fear that even a well-executed migration might confuse less engaged customers, leading some to drop off. For example, if you force all your customers to activate a new card because you switched the card issuer, a fraction simply won't and will become inactive. If those lost customers and transactions outweigh the benefits of switching , it's a deterrent. One company's reference to a major digital bank's migration, causing loss of customers, shows this is not just theoretical.
Organizational barriers: There are also psychological and organizational barriers. Teams that have worked with a vendor's system for years have built up expertise and tooling around it. There can be internal resistance to starting over on a new system (retraining staff, rebuilding reports, etc.). In some cases, key team members might even have personal relationships with vendor contacts and fear change. The human element can slow down momentum to switch, reinforcing a "better the devil we know" mentality.
Phased transition approaches: Given these barriers, companies often adopt a gradual approach to changing providers when possible.  Some run two systems in parallel (if their architecture allows it) to de-risk the cutover, albeit at extra cost. Some will start by moving a small segment of users to a new vendor as a pilot (for example, issuing new cards on a new processor for new customers only, while existing customers stay on the old processor, and then migrating in batches). This phased approach can mitigate risk but requires a very flexible backend to manage two systems at once.
Summary: These factors are why one executive noted, "most people…continue to stay on that platform because it's too difficult [to change]," basically hoping the chosen provider keeps up. Only when the pain of staying truly exceeds the pain of switching do companies undertake a major vendor change. For companies facing this decision, the research suggests prioritizing vendors with proven migration support capabilities and ensuring your architecture allows for future transitions.

Alignment with long-term success (hindsight lessons)

Given these switching barriers, the companies in our study offered valuable perspectives on what they would do differently if starting over—insights that can help others avoid getting locked into suboptimal vendor relationships. A recurring insight was that overlooked factors often become painfully clear later. 
Scalability and performance: A platform that works well for a pilot of 5,000 users might stumble at 500,000 users. Companies that achieved hyper-growth sometimes discovered that their early vendor could not scale adequately. A well-known digital bank suffered a major outage in 2019 when its third-party processor failed; this exposed that the vendor could not meet the bank’s growing reliability needs. Upon reflection, the executive team realized they had outgrown that “small” vendor and that continuing with it would hinder their long-term success. 
Data ownership and control: A COO noted that when a company grows and adds products, having customer data scattered across multiple vendor systems becomes a serious drawback: "much harder to leverage…AI and things like that" across siloed systems. 
Integration complexity: Executives flagged integration overhead as something they underestimated initially. Each additional vendor integration means more engineering maintenance, more potential points of failure, and more complex operations. One leader described using too many vendors as "death by a thousand API calls" – the technical overhead can slow progress significantly. A multi-product fintech company found itself integrating four separate KYC/AML solutions for different product lines, which was highly inefficient. The CEO remarked that instead of building one coherent process for compliance, "they were building four… one for each product," which consumed far more time and resources. 
Due diligence: Another aspect is vendor selection thoroughness. Startups sometimes make quick choices under pressure. Later on, they might realize they overlooked some due diligence. An anonymized quote from an industry consultant suggests: "define product requirements before selecting providers," and do strong due diligence, implying that some companies didn't fully map their needs or vet providers' banking partners and paid for it later. 
With hindsight, those companies would likely spend more time upfront on this process, ensuring the provider's capabilities and limitations were well understood. In some cases, companies admitted they were seduced by a fast sales pitch and didn't discover limitations until integration (e.g., one almost signed with a provider whose platform "did not match the sales pitch" and only caught it during deep due diligence, narrowly avoiding a wrong choice).
There's also the question of strategy fit: some companies might have chosen a different strategy altogether if they could redo it. For instance, a company that pursued a multi-vendor best-of-breed strategy from the start might, in hindsight, realize it made operations too complex, and maybe they should have started with a more all-in-one approach and only broken things out once scale demanded. Or vice versa: one that went all-in-one might regret not piecing together a better-of-breed solution that could evolve. Many have a clearer idea after five years of which approach would have minimized pain for them.
In contrast, for simpler products (like a basic debit card), few regret launching early with a vendor, as that was necessary to get the business off the ground. The regrets, if any, are usually about not planning the transition sooner once growth happened. As one executive acknowledged, by the time they realized the vendor wasn't ideal, they were deep in and changing was hard, so they ran with "one hand behind our back" for years while building an alternative. With hindsight, they might have started re-platforming a year earlier to shorten the period of constraint.
In conclusion, many companies would tweak their early vendor decisions if they had perfect foresight: either choosing a more scalable partner even if it meant a bit more time/cost, delaying a tricky product launch, or investing earlier in capabilities to reduce dependence. However, they also recognize that in many cases, the early choices were the only viable ones given the context, and the real differentiation came from how they navigated changes afterwards. The general mindset is not so much regret as "lessons learned" that they apply going forward.



Conclusion & recommendations: The multi-vendor mirage

The experiences and insights shared by the 11 companies in this study paint a clear picture: while multi-vendor strategies promise flexibility and cost optimization, they consistently deliver operational complexity and hidden expenses that undermine their theoretical benefits. The patterns that emerged from our research offer valuable guidance for enterprises making critical infrastructure decisions.

The true cost of complexity

Every participant in the study - 100% - recognized that the total cost of ownership extends far beyond headline pricing to encompass engineering overhead, legal complexities, and migration risks. 
When more than half of participants reported that vendor-related delays directly blocked revenue-generating product launches, the opportunity cost becomes clear: the pursuit of cost optimization through fragmentation often costs companies their most valuable asset: time to market.

The control paradox

The 73% of participants who transitioned away from full-stack vendors toward closer-to-metal solutions sought greater control over their technology stack. However, this increased technical control came at the cost of operational complexity that ultimately constrained their strategic flexibility.

Strategic recommendations

The evidence strongly supports a strategic shift toward comprehensive solutions, even when they require higher initial investment. The 64% of participants who wished they had either delayed launch or abstracted processors from day one provide crucial guidance: invest in proper infrastructure architecture before scaling pressure makes migration more expensive and disruptive.
Copyright © 2025 by Totavi, LLC. All Rights Reserved. No distribution or reproduction without the express written consent of Totavi, LLC.



Marqeta's perspective: Why these fintech lessons matter for your enterprise

The findings in this research validate what forward-thinking enterprises already suspect: the payment infrastructure decisions you make today will define your competitive position for years to come.
We studied fintech companies because they were the pioneers—forced to build modern payment infrastructure from scratch. They made the mistakes, paid the tuition, and learned what works (and what doesn't). Now enterprises can benefit from their experience without paying the same price.

Why fintech lessons apply to your enterprise:

  • The fundamental challenges are identical
  • Build vs. buy decisions under time pressure
  • Vendor selection with incomplete information
  • The hidden costs that emerge only at scale
  • The fragmentation that seems manageable at first but becomes crippling later
  • The switching costs that make bad decisions permanent
The difference? Fintech companies learned these lessons while growing from zero. Enterprises face these same challenges while managing existing systems, established customer bases, and complex organizational structures—which actually makes the stakes higher and the margin for error smaller.

The data tells the story:

The 91% of fintech companies that switched providers, the 70% whose migrations exceeded expectations, and the 64% who wished they had chosen differently from the start—these aren't just fintech statistics. They're warnings for any enterprise building or modernizing payment infrastructure.

The cost of learning this the hard way:

  • For fintech startups, vendor mistakes meant delayed launches and lost market opportunities. For enterprises, the costs are exponentially higher.
  • Larger transaction volumes mean bigger financial impact
  • Established customer bases mean higher switching complexity
  • Regulatory scrutiny means greater risk
  • Organizational complexity means longer implementation timelines
  • Brand reputation means failed launches have broader consequences

The path forward for enterprises:

The fintech companies in this study learned these lessons through expensive experience. Our hope is that their insights help your enterprise avoid making the same mistakes—and help you move faster, with more confidence, toward modern payment infrastructure that supports your growth for years to come.
The competitive advantages of the next decade will be built on infrastructure decisions you make today. You can learn from fintech pioneers, or you can become one yourself—at considerably higher cost.
Choose wisely.





Take the Complexity Out of Card Program Management

Whether you're launching, scaling, or migrating, Marqeta’s experts help you move faster, smarter, and with confidence.
Contact us

© 2026 Marqeta, Inc. 180 Grand Avenue, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612