Payment orchestration vs direct PSP integrations: pros, cons, and when each makes sense
February 18, 2026
6 min
Most payment setups don't start complex. You integrate one payment service provider (PSP) to go live, then add a second for redundancy, a third to enter a new market, and maybe another to lift approval rates in a specific region or for a high-risk merchant category code (MCC).
Suddenly, your team is maintaining routing logic across multiple APIs, reporting is fragmented, switching providers takes weeks, and every optimisation requires a development resource. Here, the debate begins: payment orchestration vs direct PSP integrations.
Both models are valid, but they serve different stages of payment infrastructure maturity.
This article breaks down the pros, cons, and practical use cases of each approach โ so you can make an architectural decision based on scalability, operational control, and long-term flexibility.
What is a direct PSP integration: definition, pros, and cons
A direct PSP integration means your team integrates separately with each provider's API and manages all routing, logic, and reporting internally. There's no orchestration layer in between โ your backend talks directly to each gateway.
Advantages of direct PSP integrations for simple payment setups
For many businesses, this approach is practical and efficient due to these advantages:
- Full technical control over implementation
- No external orchestration dependency
- No platform fee
- Straightforward architecture for 1โ2 providers
If you operate in a single market with one primary PSP and stable volumes, direct integration is often the cleanest solution. Your engineering team controls every parameter and can tailor custom logic exactly to your needs.
Scalability limits and operational constraints of direct PSP integrations
The limitations of using direct integrations usually show up during scale:
- Routing logic becomes hard-coded
- Adding a new PSP requires a full development cycle
- Provider switching is expensive
- Reporting becomes fragmented across systems
- Cascading and fallback logic require custom builds
Managing multiple PSP integrations at scale means maintaining multiple APIs, handling provider-specific updates, adapting to new compliance rules, and constantly reworking logic as business needs evolve.
What is payment orchestration, and how it works in a multi-PSP setup
A payment orchestration platform introduces a control layer between your system and multiple PSPs. Instead of building and maintaining separate integrations for each provider, you connect to the orchestration layer once.
That layer manages:
- Routing logic
- Cascading and fallback
- Provider selection
- Centralised reporting
- Standardised API communication
The key difference is operational control.
How payment orchestration improves routing, reporting, and PSP management
With orchestration, you can:
- Onboard new PSPs faster
- Configure routing rules without re-architecting your backend
- Reduce code duplication
- Centralise analytics across providers
- Adjust payment flows without deployments
For businesses scaling payments with multiple PSP integrations, orchestration shifts complexity from engineering-heavy workflows to configurable logic. It helps manage complexity deliberately instead of letting it accumulate across disconnected integrations.
Direct integrations vs orchestration: pros & cons comparison
Let's compare both approaches across the areas that matter most.
| Area | Direct PSP integrations | Payment orchestration layer |
|---|---|---|
| Development & maintenance | Separate integration per provider. More duplicated logic. Provider updates handled per PSP. Routing changes often require engineering work and releases | One integration point. Shared/standardised connector layer reduces duplicated work. Adding PSPs and updating routing logic typically involves less engineering effort. |
| Scalability | Works well for 1โ2 PSPs. Complexity grows fast as you add providers, markets, entities, or flow variants. Multi-PSP logic can become hard to manage. | Built for multi-PSP from the start. Adding providers or markets is structurally easier. Better fit for complex setups (multi-country, multi-entity, white-label). |
| Operational control | Control is engineering-led. Routing logic is often in code, so changes require deployments. Outage workarounds can be manual. Reporting is spread across PSP dashboards/tools. | Control shifts to operations/product. Routing and fallback can be managed dynamically. Faster response to issues (performance drops, outages). Centralised visibility and reporting across providers. |
| Cost structure | No platform fee. Lower upfront cost. Long-term costs rise with the internal engineering and maintenance burden as complexity increases. | Platform cost. Lower operational overhead at scale. Faster PSP onboarding and less ongoing engineering workload can reduce total cost over time. |
When direct PSP integrations are the right choice
In the right context, direct integrations are the most rational approach. It makes sense when:
- You operate in a single market
- You rely on one primary PSP
- Payment flows are stable
- You don't need dynamic routing or cascading
- Your engineering team has capacity and prefers full control
- There's no white-label or multi-entity complexity
In these scenarios, orchestration may add unnecessary abstraction. If your infrastructure is simple and expected to remain simple, direct PSP integrations are efficient and clean.
When payment orchestration becomes necessary
The tipping point is usually operational. Payment orchestration becomes valuable when you experience signals like:
- 3+ PSPs in production
- Frequent provider changes
- Expansion into multiple countries
- High-risk MCC management
- White-label or multi-merchant models
- Approval rate optimisation across providers
You may also notice operational friction:
- PSP switching takes months
- Outages require manual rerouting
- Reporting is fragmented
- Costs are difficult to compare across providers
- Routing changes require engineering sprints
At this stage, managing multiple PSP integrations at scale becomes a structural challenge. And orchestration helps organise this complexity. For payment managers who need configurable routing, faster provider onboarding, and centralised control, payment orchestration is often the architectural evolution that restores flexibility.
Build or buy payment orchestration?๐ณ
This guide compares building and buying approaches and provides a practical decision framework to help you choose the right strategy.
Final takeaway
Direct PSP integrations are optimised for simplicity, while payment orchestration is an architectural response to complexity.
If you manage a single provider in a single market, direct integration may be exactly what you need. But if you're scaling across PSPs, countries, business models, or white-label structures, orchestration provides the control layer you need to manage that growth without constant redevelopment.
At Corefy, we provide a payment orchestration platform built for payment managers who need flexibility, visibility, and control across complex payment infrastructures.
If you're evaluating your next architectural step, we're ready to explore it with you.
.jpg)
