Download the full 3-part Merchant Payments Orchestration eBook here!

In Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we explored the definition, value, and practical implications of merchant payments orchestration. We clarified the distinction between orchestration activities (lowercase “o”) and Orchestration Platforms (capital “O”) that streamline payments complexity through unified access, routing, and optimization. However, the path to orchestration is not uniform. Merchants approach orchestration with differing levels of in-house capability, technical resource availability, and appetite for third-party dependency.

As the ecosystem evolves, we now observe a variety of orchestration implementation models, each with distinct characteristics. While these models can be viewed across a spectrum of control and technical ownership, they are not a simple hierarchy of sophistication. Many large, capable merchants selectively use third-party or PSP-managed orchestration to accelerate market entry, simplify regional integrations, or access benefits that would otherwise be costly or time-consuming to replicate in-house. Conversely, some mid-market companies build custom orchestration layers to achieve a specific optimization outcome. The choice of model reflects strategic priorities more than simply technical maturity.

1. In-House and Modular Orchestration

We begin with the original model, before third-party orchestration existed. Whether this version of orchestration could be considered sophisticated and advanced depends on the sophistication of the merchant itself and the complexity of the merchant’s platform. 

This model is most commonly adopted by large, technically sophisticated merchants that view payments as infrastructure. In fact, this model is in place at many enterprise merchants today; however, in many less sophisticated cases, the architecture is not optimized to fully realize the benefits of true orchestration. In-house orchestration involves building and managing direct integrations to PSPs, acquirers, and ancillary services while maintaining full ownership of routing logic, tokenization, fraud management, and reporting layers. Merchants using this model increasingly take a modular approach, combining best-of-breed tools such as token vault providers and fraud solutions, which together form a customized orchestration stack.

One advantage of this approach is that it offers complete control over the payments architecture. Merchants can fine-tune performance, tailor routing and retry logic to their own data and objectives, and maintain ownership of sensitive assets such as tokens. Vendor lock-in is minimized, and optimization decisions remain in-house.

This model requires substantial and ongoing investment in engineering resources. Integrating and maintaining multiple providers is complex and can be resource-intensive. As new geographies, payment methods, or risk requirements emerge, internal teams must prioritize and deliver these integrations themselves. For many organizations, building orchestration in-house (and realizing optimal performance compared to the alternatives) is feasible only when payment performance is business-critical and the scale justifies the operational cost.

2. Hybrid Orchestration

Hybrid orchestration models reflect the reality that orchestration is rarely a binary decision. Hybrid orchestration often emerges as merchants evolve, layering external tools atop core in-house systems to extend coverage across geographies or payment types. Merchants may combine internal development with external tools depending on geography, payment method, or strategic priority. A merchant might use a third-party orchestrator in emerging markets while maintaining direct PSP integrations in core markets. Alternatively, orchestration may be layered on top of select flows such as digital wallets or recurring payments, while leaving other flows unchanged.

This approach is attractive because it offers flexibility. Merchants can phase in orchestration gradually, test specific providers or regions, and tailor their architecture to evolving business needs. Hybrid models also allow organizations to avoid vendor lock-in by maintaining direct relationships with strategic providers while using orchestration tools selectively.

The downside is that hybrid models can introduce complexity. Managing multiple orchestration approaches in parallel may require careful coordination between teams, especially when it comes to reporting, settlement, and performance analysis. Unless carefully architected, hybrid environments can create operational friction, data fragmentation, or redundant processes.

3. Third-Party Advanced Orchestration (Developer-Centric)

Some orchestration providers offer developer-centric solutions that emphasize flexibility and integration depth. These platforms provide robust APIs that enable merchants to programmatically manage payment flows, route transactions based on custom business logic, and connect with multiple providers using modular services.

Unlike hybrid models, which blend ownership types, developer-centric orchestration represents a step toward flexibility through modular, API-driven control while still requiring technical maturity and knowledge. 

The main strength of this approach is the high degree of control it offers to payments and engineering teams. Merchants can build orchestration flows that align precisely with their internal systems and business goals. These platforms are designed for developers, with clear documentation, sandbox environments, and detailed control over routing, retries, and conditional logic.

However, this flexibility comes with a cost. Implementing a developer-centric orchestration solution requires engineering expertise and dedicated resources to integrate, test, and maintain the orchestration layer. For organizations without a mature payments engineering function, this model may present operational risks or delays. Even for those with technical capability, the time required to fully implement orchestration features may be longer than with managed solutions.

4. Third-Party Managed Orchestration (Low-Code or No-Code)

This model serves merchants who want orchestration capabilities without the need for deep technical oversight. Low-code orchestration platforms offer a user-friendly interface, prebuilt provider connections, and templated routing logic that merchants can configure with minimal developer support. These tools are often used by mid-market companies or smaller enterprise teams that want to improve performance without significant engineering investment.

The clearest advantage of this approach is its speed and ease of deployment. Because integrations and dashboards are already built, merchants can go live quickly and make changes to routing or provider selection without waiting for development cycles. These platforms lower the barrier to entry for sophisticated payments optimization by enabling non-technical teams to configure logic through an interface.

The tradeoff, however, is limited customization and transparency. The platform abstracts much of the underlying logic, which may limit a merchant’s ability to tailor routing or optimization rules based on proprietary data. While sufficient for many use cases, these platforms may fall short for merchants with complex international operations or advanced optimization requirements. Additionally, reliance on a prebuilt platform may constrain flexibility as needs evolve, or as the merchant becomes more sophisticated and develops the need for more control. 

5. PSP-Managed Orchestration

Leading PSPs have introduced orchestration capabilities directly within their platforms, allowing merchants to connect to multiple payment endpoints while relying on a single integration. These platforms may support dynamic routing, fallback logic, and token reuse across providers, using tools and insights from within the PSP’s ecosystem.

PSP-managed orchestration can serve merchants at every level of sophistication. While smaller merchants often use it for simplicity, large enterprise merchants sometimes rely on PSP-managed orchestration as a speed-to-market tool or to benefit from pre-integrated access to global acquiring and alternative payment methods.

The primary benefit of this model is its simplicity. Merchants can access benefits from orchestration without needing to build or manage these integrations themselves. The PSP offers prebuilt access to a range of providers and delivers performance enhancements using its native tools, often including fraud and risk modules. The single integration can significantly reduce time to market and engineering lift.

When leveraging PSP-managed orchestration, merchants may still need to develop their own routing logic and manage performance benchmarking across providers. One concern a merchant can have: their PSP is not a neutral, PSP-agnostic provider, and now has visibility into a merchant’s full payments volume. This can affect a merchant’s ability to negotiate rates and create vendor lock-in, given the reliance on the PSP for critical payments architecture. The PSP orchestrating payments is not incentivized to offer full redundancy across all payment methods through maximum integration with competing providers. Ultimately, the PSP’s control over orchestration can create opacity and limit the flexibility needed by merchants with complex or evolving needs.

Conclusion

As payments orchestration continues to evolve, it is clear that merchants face a growing number of paths to achieve flexibility, performance, and resilience in their payment systems. The five orchestration categories explored in this section reflect a spectrum of control, customization, and complexity. Some merchants will prioritize speed and simplicity, adopting low-code orchestration platforms to accelerate geographic expansion or integrate new payment methods. Others will continue to build their own orchestration frameworks, leveraging deep internal expertise to retain maximum control over routing logic, optimization strategies, and data governance. Many merchants will adopt a blended approach, tailoring their orchestration strategies by use case or region.

The key takeaway, consistent with the themes in Parts 1 and 2, is that a merchant’s decision about orchestration should be based on strategic fit. A successful orchestration approach aligns with the merchant’s size, complexity, growth stage, and organizational structure. Sophisticated enterprise merchants may benefit from the cost efficiency and operational simplification that third-party orchestration can provide, even if they already have internal capabilities. At the same time, high-growth mid-market merchants can use orchestration platforms to access advanced payments capabilities without needing to build them in-house. Regardless of the model selected, the goal remains the same: to unlock better performance at every step in the payments value chain while reducing operational burden and enabling future growth.

Understanding where each orchestration model excels and where it introduces risk or limitations is essential for selecting the right fit. As the market continues to mature, we expect to see increased convergence between orchestration and adjacent functions such as fraud prevention, tokenization, and post-settlement operations. The decision to orchestrate is no longer only about whether it is needed, but about how and with which partners.

As Payments Orchestration continues to develop, we’ll keep watching closely. Until then, if your organization could use some help in deciding if, and which, Payments Orchestration Platform is right for you, we’re here to talk.