Should You Switch from Adyen?

A Payment Strategy Review for High-Volume Merchants

Adyen is not usually a payment provider a business ends up with by accident.

For many established merchants, moving to Adyen was itself a strategic decision: consolidate payment infrastructure, process internationally, connect online and in-person payments, improve access to payment data and reduce the number of separate providers involved in the payment flow.

That makes reviewing Adyen very different from replacing a simple payment gateway.

A business might have spent years connecting:

checkout → Adyen → fraud → acquiring → tokenisation → recurring payments → terminals → refunds → reporting → finance

across multiple countries and business units.

So when a CFO, COO or CTO asks:

“Should we switch from Adyen?”

our starting answer is:

Not until you know what problem you're actually trying to solve.

For some businesses, the right outcome will be renegotiating or reconfiguring the existing Adyen arrangement.

For others, it may be introducing a second payment route or acquirer to reduce reliance on a single stack.

And for some, a full provider change may genuinely make sense.

The objective of an Adyen review should therefore be to establish which of three strategies is appropriate:

Optimise Adyen

Diversify the payment architecture

or

Replace Adyen

This guide is primarily for established UK and European businesses processing significant card volume, particularly organisations with complex integrations, international operations, recurring payments, multiple channels or enterprise payment requirements.

For the wider approach, see our High-Volume Merchant Processing guide and Payments Strategy Library.

---

Quick Summary

Adyen currently operates a full-stack payment model spanning gateway, risk management, processing and acquiring, with online and in-person payments brought together through a single platform.

That integration is one of Adyen's main strengths.

It can also mean that replacing Adyen affects considerably more than the transaction rate.

A high-volume merchant reviewing Adyen should consider:

• current effective payment cost;

• processing volume and growth;

• Interchange++ pricing;

• card mix;

• authorisation performance;

• local versus cross-border acquiring;

• international expansion;

• alternative payment methods;

• ecommerce and in-person payments;

• tokenisation;

• recurring payments;

• fraud configuration;

• reporting and reconciliation;

• terminal infrastructure;

• merchant-account structure;

• existing APIs and webhooks;

• business continuity;

• token portability;

• provider concentration; and

• future payment strategy.

The key principle is:

Don't compare Adyen with another PSP until you've worked out which parts of Adyen you are actually trying to replace.

---

Find Your New Processor

Why Reviewing Adyen Is Different From Reviewing a Basic PSP

Adyen's current proposition is deliberately built around reducing fragmentation.

Its payment infrastructure can encompass:

gateway + payment processing + acquiring + risk + authentication + tokenisation + payment methods + point of sale + reporting

within one broader platform.

See Adyen's current global payment-processing architecture

For a multinational or omnichannel merchant, that can solve a real problem.

Instead of operating separate:

• gateways;

• local acquirers;

• fraud platforms;

• terminal providers; and

• regional payment integrations,

the business can potentially consolidate more of the payment flow.

This means a review needs to recognise something important:

The benefits that originally made Adyen attractive may still be valuable.

A provider review shouldn't begin with a predetermined conclusion that the incumbent needs replacing.

---

Sometimes Adyen is doing exactly what you need it to do

Imagine a retailer operating in:

UK → France → Germany → Netherlands → US

with:

• ecommerce;

• stores;

• mobile;

• local payment methods;

• stored customer credentials; and

• central payment reporting.

A single global payment infrastructure may offer considerable operational simplicity.

Now imagine replacing it with:

• one gateway;

• three acquiring banks;

• another fraud provider;

• a separate POS arrangement;

• regional APM connections; and

• several reporting feeds.

The headline acquiring margin might be lower.

The total payment architecture might not be.

That is why MAS does not think established merchants should ask:

“Who is cheaper than Adyen?”

in isolation.

The better question is:

“What does our current Adyen infrastructure cost us, what value does it create, and could another architecture produce a better overall result?”

---

The Adyen Review: Optimise, Diversify or Replace?

This is the framework we would use.

Strategy	When it may warrant investigation
Optimise	Adyen still fits technically, but pricing, configuration, acquiring, authorisation or commercial terms need reviewing
Diversify	The business wants resilience, routing flexibility, another acquirer/PSP or less dependency on one provider
Replace	The commercial, technical, geographic or strategic fit has materially changed

The important point is that a provider review does not automatically equal a provider switch.

---

1. When Should a Business Optimise Its Existing Adyen Arrangement?

This is probably the most overlooked option.

Suppose the payment infrastructure works.

The technology team is happy.

Customers can pay successfully.

Adyen supports the markets and payment methods required.

But the business has grown from:

£1 million a month

to:

£5 million a month

since the original agreement was signed.

That should trigger a commercial review.

The payment provider may still be correct.

The original commercial arrangement may no longer be.

---

Has Your Processing Volume Outgrown Your Original Adyen Terms?

Payment agreements are often negotiated at a particular stage of a company's growth.

Three years later, the business may have:

• significantly higher processing volume;

• higher transaction counts;

• more countries;

• more card-present volume;

• different card mix;

• more predictable chargebacks;

• stronger financials; and

• a longer processing history.

Those changes alter the merchant's commercial profile.

At £1 million monthly processing, a seemingly small pricing difference matters.

At £5 million or £10 million monthly processing, it matters considerably more.

For example:

£60 million annual processing × 0.05% = £30,000

£60 million annual processing × 0.10% = £60,000

That does not mean a merchant can automatically reduce its payment costs by those amounts.

It demonstrates why relatively small pricing differences become commercially significant at enterprise volume.

Before opening a negotiation, businesses should understand what they are actually paying.

See How High-Turnover Businesses Audit Payment Fees.

---

Don't Compare Adyen Using One Percentage

Adyen currently describes its pricing as:

processing fee + payment-method fee

and uses Interchange++ pricing for relevant card transactions.

See Adyen's current pricing

Interchange++ separates several components of card-processing cost rather than wrapping everything inside one blended percentage.

For a merchant reviewing its current arrangement, that means the useful question isn't simply:

“What percentage does Adyen charge us?”

The review needs to identify:

• interchange;

• scheme fees;

• Adyen processing charges;

• acquiring markup;

• card type;

• geography;

• channel;

• currency;

• payment method;

• terminal costs;

• additional products;

• refunds;

• chargebacks; and

• any other relevant charges.

Then calculate the effective cost against actual processed volume.

Our guide to IC+ and IC++ pricing for high-turnover merchants explains the pricing structure in more detail.

---

A CFO Should Separate Cost From Payment Performance

There is another reason not to optimise payment costs blindly.

Imagine:

Provider A costs 0.05% less

but:

Provider B authorises materially more legitimate transactions.

The supposedly cheaper provider may generate less revenue.

This becomes increasingly important at high processing volumes.

For a merchant attempting £100 million annually, even a small difference in successful payment conversion can outweigh modest processing-cost savings.

The review should therefore consider:

payment cost and payment performance together.

That means examining:

• overall authorisation rate;

• issuer declines;

• soft declines;

• authentication;

• retries;

• recurring-payment performance;

• network tokens;

• card geography;

• acquiring region; and

• fraud-related declines.

Adyen itself invests heavily in payment-performance optimisation and currently offers network tokenisation, authentication, risk tools and other optimisation products.

The question is not whether those capabilities exist.

It is:

Are they producing the right results for your business?

See our guide to improving enterprise payment authorisation rates.

---

Find Your New Processor

Look at Authorisation Rates by Market, Not Just Globally

A merchant might report:

92% authorisation rate

and assume performance is satisfactory.

But underneath that figure:

UK: 95%
France: 94%
Germany: 93%
US: 85%
Brazil: 77%

The global figure masks the problem.

The same applies to:

• Visa versus Mastercard;

• debit versus credit;

• domestic versus international;

• new versus returning customers;

• ecommerce versus app;

• subscriptions versus one-off payments; and

• different acquiring regions.

Enterprise payment reviews should therefore work at a more granular level.

---

Local Acquiring Is One of the Stronger Arguments for Adyen — So Test Whether You Are Actually Using It Well

Adyen currently provides its own acquiring in multiple markets across Europe, North America, Latin America and Asia-Pacific, with partner arrangements in other locations.

See Adyen's current global acquiring coverage

The benefit of local acquiring is straightforward.

Instead of a transaction being processed cross-border, it can potentially be acquired locally.

That may affect:

• interchange and scheme costs;

• authorisation;

• settlement;

• local payment methods; and

• payment performance.

But enterprise merchants should distinguish:

“Adyen offers local acquiring”

from:

“Our transactions are optimally configured for local acquiring.”

They are not automatically the same thing.

---

The Legal-Entity Structure Matters

Adyen's current account documentation explains that acquiring connections are configured at merchant-account level and that a merchant account can only be associated with one acquiring region.

It also notes that businesses often establish merchant accounts linked to local legal entities in regions where Adyen offers local acquiring.

See Adyen's account-structure documentation

That means an international payment review should map:

legal entity → merchant account → acquiring region → settlement account → customer market

rather than simply looking at a list of countries where the business takes payments.

For a multinational business, this can uncover situations where the corporate structure and payment structure have grown apart.

---

Expansion Can Be a Reason to Stay With Adyen

It's important to say this plainly.

If the business is entering more markets and Adyen has suitable local acquiring, payment methods and infrastructure in those countries, expansion may strengthen the case for retaining the platform.

The business may benefit from avoiding:

• separate integrations;

• separate PSP relationships;

• separate reporting environments; and

• fragmented reconciliation.

Adyen's single-platform architecture is specifically designed around this problem.

---

Expansion Can Also Be a Reason to Review Adyen

The opposite can also be true.

A company may expand into a country where:

• its preferred acquiring model differs;

• a particular local payment method is commercially important;

• another provider performs better;

• a local acquirer offers a compelling arrangement;

• regulatory/entity requirements change;

• a strategic local partner is needed; or

• the business wants to avoid depending on one global provider.

The decision should therefore be based on:

where the company is going next

rather than merely:

where Adyen already works today.

For businesses planning expansion, payment architecture should ideally be reviewed before a new country launches.

---

2. When Should a Business Diversify Away From a Single Adyen Stack?

This is a different question from leaving Adyen.

A merchant can decide that Adyen remains strategically important while also deciding:

We no longer want one provider handling virtually everything.

For an enterprise organisation, provider concentration can become a deliberate risk-management question.

---

Single-Platform Simplicity and Provider Dependency Are Two Sides of the Same Decision

The attraction of the Adyen model is consolidation.

One integration can connect a business to multiple payment functions and markets.

That reduces complexity.

But there is an unavoidable strategic trade-off.

The more payment functions concentrated with one provider, the more important that provider becomes to the business.

A C-suite payment review should therefore ask:

If Adyen became unavailable, what would happen?

Could we route transactions elsewhere?

How quickly?

Which channels would be affected?

Could our stored credentials be used elsewhere?

Could another acquirer be introduced without rebuilding checkout?

Would our terminals still operate?

This isn't an argument against Adyen.

It is the same concentration-risk question that should be asked of any strategically important payment provider.

---

Does a High-Volume Merchant Need More Than One PSP?

Not always.

Multi-provider architecture introduces its own costs and complexity.

It may involve:

• additional integrations;

• orchestration;

• reconciliation;

• routing logic;

• more contracts;

• separate risk configurations;

• duplicated testing; and

• operational overhead.

There should therefore be a reason for doing it.

Potential reasons include:

• resilience;

• regional performance;

• specialist acquiring;

• payment-method coverage;

• bargaining leverage;

• business continuity;

• risk diversification; or

• intelligent routing.

The objective should not be:

“two PSPs are automatically better than one.”

It should be:

“does the value of an additional payment route justify the complexity?”

For more on this structure, see Acquirer-Agnostic Payment Gateways: Using One Gateway With Multiple Acquirers.

---

Adyen's Token Strategy Makes the Lock-In Question More Interesting in 2026

Historically, one of the hardest parts of changing PSP could be the stored payment credentials.

This matters enormously for:

• subscriptions;

• SaaS;

• memberships;

• marketplaces;

• hotels;

• travel businesses;

• ecommerce accounts; and

• businesses with one-click checkout.

A merchant might have millions of customer credentials tokenised inside its existing PSP.

Changing provider then becomes much more than replacing an API.

However, Adyen's current tokenisation documentation deserves attention here.

Adyen now documents a Forward capability that allows payment details stored with Adyen to be forwarded to a PCI-compliant third party, allowing those payment credentials to be used across providers.

See Adyen's current tokenisation documentation

Adyen has also introduced a wider tokenisation proposition around routing stored credentials across providers.

See Adyen's current Tokenise proposition

This changes the conversation.

It would be outdated simply to state:

“Your Adyen tokens are locked into Adyen.”

Instead, an enterprise review should establish:

• what type of tokens are currently used;

• whether they are Adyen tokens or network tokens;

• what data is available;

• whether Forward is available for the required use case;

• what the receiving PSP requires;

• what PCI responsibilities apply;

• how recurring agreements are mapped;

• whether customer references are preserved; and

• how migration or multi-provider routing would actually be implemented.

MAS View

Token portability should be tested, not assumed — in either direction.

The fact that a provider supports a migration mechanism does not mean a complex recurring-payment estate can be moved overnight.

---

Network Tokens Make This More Complicated Again

Adyen supports network tokenisation for eligible card payments.

Network tokens are issued through card networks rather than functioning simply as a PSP-created representation of the underlying card.

Adyen states that network tokenisation can help maintain payment credentials when a customer's physical card expires or is replaced and can contribute to higher authorisation rates.

See Adyen's network-token documentation

However, Adyen's documentation also notes that its implementation of network tokenisation is applicable to payments acquired by Adyen rather than external acquirer connections.

This is exactly the type of technical detail that matters when designing a multi-provider strategy.

A tokenisation strategy should therefore form part of the payment architecture — not be discovered halfway through a migration.

---

3. When Might It Make Sense to Replace Adyen?

A full switch becomes more reasonable when the issue is structural rather than incremental.

Examples could include:

The commercial arrangement no longer reflects the business

Processing volume has changed substantially and another structure produces a materially better total outcome.

The business needs a different acquiring architecture

The company wants more control over its acquiring relationships or wants to use a gateway/orchestration layer independently of the underlying acquirers.

The technology strategy has changed

An acquisition, replatforming or infrastructure project may make the existing payment integration less strategically relevant.

The company's geographic footprint has changed

The markets where the business now generates significant revenue may warrant a different regional arrangement.

The business wants to reduce provider concentration

A single full-stack PSP may no longer fit the company's resilience or treasury strategy.

Required functionality sits elsewhere

A specialist requirement may become important enough to justify another architecture.

Service or operational requirements are no longer being met

Payment performance, reporting, support, settlement or another material requirement may have changed.

The existence of any one of these issues does not automatically mean Adyen should be replaced.

It means a structured market review is justified.

---

Find Your New Processor

Don't Ask “Who Is the Best Adyen Alternative?”

For an enterprise merchant, that's usually the wrong question.

There is no single category called “Adyen alternative”.

A business might replace Adyen with:

another global full-stack PSP

or:

an independent gateway + separate acquirer

or:

payment orchestration + multiple PSPs

or:

regional/local acquiring relationships

or:

different providers in different markets

or:

a hybrid model retaining Adyen for part of the estate

These are completely different architectures.

The requirement should determine which market to examine.

---

A Better Adyen Alternatives Framework

Instead of creating a list of provider names, decide what you're trying to change.

Current concern	Architecture worth investigating
Processing costs	Renegotiation and/or competing acquiring proposals
International performance	Local acquiring and regional PSP analysis
Provider concentration	Secondary PSP or multi-acquirer architecture
Resilience	Routing/failover architecture
Lack of payment-method coverage	Additional PSP/APM capability
Recurring-payment portability	Token/migration architecture
In-person + ecommerce consolidation	Unified commerce alternatives
Greater acquiring control	Acquirer-agnostic gateway/orchestration
Specific regional requirement	Specialist local provider
Entire Adyen relationship no longer fits	Full PSP procurement

That produces a much more useful procurement exercise than:

Adyen vs Provider X vs Provider Y.

---

An Acquisition Is a Particularly Good Time to Review Adyen

Imagine a business already uses Adyen.

It then acquires another company using:

Worldpay + separate fraud tool + another gateway.

The instinct might be to move everything immediately onto Adyen.

That could be correct.

But an acquisition gives the business something valuable:

real payment performance from two existing architectures.

Before consolidating, compare:

• payment cost;

• authorisation rates;

• chargeback performance;

• card mix;

• local acquiring;

• integration;

• settlement;

• reporting;

• payment methods; and

• operational complexity.

Then decide which architecture should survive.

Don't consolidate simply because one system is already designated as the “group standard”.

Payments are measurable.

Use the data.

---

The Same Applies After Several Years of International Growth

Payment infrastructure accumulates.

A company may start with Adyen in the UK.

It opens in Europe.

Then the US.

Then acquires an Asian business.

Five years later the group might have:

• multiple Adyen merchant accounts;

• legacy PSPs;

• local acquiring relationships;

• different legal entities;

• different settlement currencies;

• regional fraud rules;

• several ecommerce platforms; and

• different point-of-sale estates.

At this stage, asking:

“Are we happy with Adyen?”

is too simplistic.

The real question is:

“If we were designing our global payment infrastructure from scratch today, would we build it the way it currently looks?”

That is a much better basis for an enterprise payment review.

---

Switching Adyen With Recurring Payments Needs Its Own Workstream

If the business holds significant stored payment credentials, don't treat migration as one line in a procurement spreadsheet.

Build a dedicated plan.

Establish:

What is stored?

Cards, network tokens, PSP tokens and customer references.

Why is it stored?

Subscription, one-click, card-on-file or unscheduled merchant-initiated payments.

Where is it stored?

Which Adyen account, entity or environment?

What can move?

Confirm the export/forwarding and receiving-provider processes.

Can both PSPs run simultaneously?

A staged migration may be safer than a single cutover.

How are new customers handled during migration?

New token creation needs a defined destination while historic credentials are moving.

How is success tested?

Recurring payments should be monitored after migration rather than assuming successful data transfer means successful future charging.

Adyen's own documentation for merchants moving into Adyen recommends phased token migration, including directing new tokenisation to Adyen while historic recurring payments temporarily remain with the old provider.

See Adyen's payment-data migration documentation

The same principle illustrates why complex migrations deserve planning.

See our wider guide to changing payment gateways and moving stored cards, tokens and recurring payments.

---

Switching Adyen With In-Person Payments Is Not Just an Ecommerce Migration

For omnichannel merchants, terminals create another migration layer.

A retailer, hospitality group or service business may need to consider:

• terminal hardware;

• EPOS integrations;

• terminal management;

• network configuration;

• store rollout;

• refunds;

• tokenisation;

• card-present recurring credentials;

• reconciliation;

• device replacement;

• support; and

• offline/continuity requirements.

A full provider change may therefore involve hundreds or thousands of physical locations.

This substantially changes the switching business case.

A £100,000 annual theoretical processing saving may look attractive.

If the migration requires:

1,500 new terminals + software development + store rollout + staff changes + operational risk

the board needs to see those costs too.

---

Calculate the Switching Business Case Properly

This is the calculation many provider comparisons miss.

Don't compare:

Adyen annual fees

with:

new PSP annual fees

alone.

Compare:

Current annual payment cost

plus the value/cost of current operational performance

against:

Proposed annual payment cost

plus:

• implementation;

• development;

• token migration;

• terminals;

• certification;

• integration;

• testing;

• finance changes;

• staff resource;

• parallel running;

• contractual exit costs;

• operational risk; and

• ongoing additional complexity.

Then calculate the expected payback period.

---

The MAS Adyen Switching Test

For an established merchant, we think there are four numbers the board should know before approving a migration.

1. Annual Addressable Payment Cost

What does the current payment arrangement actually cost?

Not estimates.

Actual payment data.

2. Expected Annual Improvement

What is the realistic financial benefit of the proposed architecture?

Include both:

cost savings

and, where measurable:

payment-performance improvement.

3. One-Off Migration Cost

Include technical and operational expenditure, not merely a provider setup fee.

4. Payback Period

Broadly:

One-off migration cost ÷ expected annual benefit = indicative payback period

For example:

If changing architecture genuinely produces:

£150,000 expected annual benefit

but implementation costs:

£300,000

the simple payback period is around:

two years.

That does not mean the project should or shouldn't happen.

It gives the board something much more useful than:

“The new PSP's markup is 8 basis points cheaper.”

MAS View

For enterprise merchants, payment-provider switching is an investment decision, not a rate-comparison exercise.

---

Find Your New Processor

When Should You Review Adyen Even If You Are Happy?

We would not wait until something goes wrong.

Natural review points include:

• material processing-volume growth;

• contract renewal;

• international expansion;

• acquisition;

• ecommerce replatforming;

• new POS estate;

• major subscription growth;

• entry into new payment channels;

• legal-entity restructuring;

• deterioration in authorisation performance;

• changes in payment mix; or

• significant changes to the payment-provider market.

A review can conclude:

No change required.

That is still a useful outcome if the business has tested its current arrangement against the market.

---

What Data Should Be Taken Into an Adyen Review?

For a serious enterprise review, we would want to see enough information to reconstruct how payments are actually performing.

That may include:

Commercial

• monthly processed volume;

• transaction count;

• average transaction value;

• invoices;

• contractual pricing;

• acquiring markup;

• other product fees.

Card mix

• Visa/Mastercard/Amex;

• debit/credit;

• consumer/commercial;

• domestic/EEA/international.

Performance

• authorisation rates;

• decline reasons;

• fraud;

• chargebacks;

• 3DS performance;

• recurring-payment success.

Geography

• customer countries;

• legal entities;

• acquiring regions;

• settlement currencies;

• local payment methods.

Technology

• API integration;

• webhooks;

• tokens;

• recurring payments;

• ecommerce platforms;

• terminals;

• EPOS;

• mobile apps.

Operational

• refunds;

• reconciliation;

• settlement;

• finance reporting;

• support;

• outage procedures.

That information turns a payment-provider review into a strategic exercise rather than a sales presentation.

---

What an Independent Adyen Review Should Actually Produce

The output should not simply be:

“Here are three Adyen alternatives.”

For an established business, a useful review should answer:

Is the current Adyen pricing appropriate?

Based on current volume, card mix and requirements.

Is the current setup configured effectively?

Including acquiring structure and payment performance.

Does the single-platform model still suit the organisation?

Or has scale created a reason to diversify?

What would actually have to move?

Gateway, acquiring, fraud, tokens, terminals, APMs, reporting or only selected components.

What are the realistic alternative architectures?

Not just alternative brand names.

What does migration cost?

Technically and operationally.

What is the expected financial outcome?

Including an estimated payback period where possible.

What should stay with Adyen?

This is an important question too.

A hybrid architecture may sometimes create more value than an all-or-nothing switch.

---

How Merchant Advice Service Approaches an Adyen Review

Merchant Advice Service is independent of Adyen and is not suggesting that businesses using Adyen should automatically move elsewhere.

Our role is to establish whether the current payment arrangement still fits the business.

For established merchants, that may involve reviewing:

processing data → pricing → payment performance → integrations → geography → acquiring → tokens → future requirements

before considering other provider routes.

Where another payment provider, gateway, acquirer or payment architecture warrants investigation, MAS can make relevant introductions.

Where the evidence suggests the current arrangement remains appropriate, switching for the sake of switching would make little sense.

MAS does not charge merchants for its payment-provider matching and introduction service. MAS may receive commission or referral fees from some providers where a business proceeds following an introduction.

You can read How Merchant Advice Service Works and How MAS Researches and Compares Payment Providers.

Sources & Further Reading

Provider capabilities within this guide were checked against current Adyen documentation in August 2026.

Adyen — Global Payment Processing

Adyen describes its current architecture as a single platform spanning gateway, risk, processing and acquiring, with local acquiring available across a range of global markets.

Adyen Global Payment Processing

Adyen — Pricing

Current Adyen pricing information covering its processing-fee structure, payment-method pricing, Interchange++ and custom pricing.

Adyen Pricing

Adyen — Account and Acquiring Structure

Technical documentation explaining merchant accounts, legal entities, acquiring regions and settlement structure.

Adyen Account Structure

Adyen — Tokenisation

Current technical documentation covering Adyen tokenisation, network tokens, Account Updater and forwarding stored payment details to third parties.

Adyen Tokenisation Documentation

Adyen — Network Tokenisation

Technical information on network-token support and its application to payment authorisation and stored credentials.

Adyen Network Tokenisation

Adyen — Payment Data Migration

Documentation explaining how recurring payment data can be migrated from another payment provider into Adyen.

Adyen Payment Data Migration

Adyen — Tokenise

Adyen's current enterprise tokenisation proposition covering provider-independent token strategy and routing payment credentials across providers.

Adyen Tokenise

---

Related Merchant Advice Service Guidance

• Payments Strategy Library

• High-Volume Merchant Processing

• How High-Turnover Businesses Audit Payment Fees

• When High-Turnover Businesses Should Move to IC+ or IC++

• How Enterprise Merchants Improve Payment Authorisation Rates

• Changing Payment Gateway: Stored Cards, Tokens and Recurring Payments

• Acquirer-Agnostic Payment Gateways

• Alternative Payment Method Gateways

• Compare UK Payment Providers

---

Editorial and Commercial Disclosure

Merchant Advice Service is an independent payments information, comparison and provider-matching service.

Merchant Advice Service is not affiliated with Adyen.

MAS may receive commission or a referral fee from some payment providers where a business chooses to proceed following an introduction. This does not determine the factual information, analysis or provider capabilities included in this guide.

Adyen has not paid for inclusion in this article.

References to Adyen are based on publicly available provider information and technical documentation checked at the date stated below.

The purpose of this article is not to recommend that merchants leave Adyen. For some businesses, retaining or optimising an existing Adyen relationship may be more appropriate than changing provider.

Any providers considered as potential alternatives would need to be assessed against the individual merchant's processing volume, integrations, geography, business model, payment channels, risk profile and technical requirements.

Provider pricing, acquiring coverage, functionality, token portability and integrations can change and should be confirmed before making a contractual or technical decision.

Merchant Advice Service does not make payment-provider underwriting decisions and cannot guarantee acceptance or particular commercial terms.

---

Provider information last checked: 25 August 2026

Article last reviewed: August 2026

This guide provides general payments information and should not be treated as legal, regulatory, technical or financial advice.