Use case summary
Consolidated reports compare providers, methods, and geographies in one place, with routing fees included so cost sits next to performance. Results break down by segment rather than averaging into one figure. Result: decisions about which provider keeps which traffic rest on evidence rather than on the relationship.
- Payment Manager
- Finance & CFO
Why providers are hard to compare fairly
Each provider reports on itself. Its portal shows its own approvals, its own volumes, its own definitions of what a successful payment is, and no context about how the others did on the same traffic.
Even with the numbers gathered, the comparison is rarely like-for-like. One provider carries your domestic card traffic and another handles cross-border, so their approval rates describe different work. A blended figure per provider hides what you need: how each performs on the segments it actually competes for.
Without that, provider decisions fall back on other inputs: the rate in the contract, how responsive the account manager is, how long the relationship has run. All of them matter, and none of them tells you what a provider returns on your traffic.
How to compare providers on the same terms
Every payment across every provider lands in one dataset with shared statuses, which is what makes a fair comparison possible in the first place.
- 1
Put every provider in one report
Consolidated reports compare providers, methods, and geographies together, so each provider's results appear next to the others rather than in its own portal.
- 2
Compare within segments
Break results down by method, currency, country, and status. Two providers only tell you something useful when you measure them on the same kind of traffic, usually a segment rather than your whole volume.
- 3
Put cost next to performance
Routing fees are included in analytics, so a provider's approval rate sits beside what its transactions cost. This is the comparison that answers whether a cheaper provider is actually cheaper.
- 4
Look at why the losses happened
Failure reasons and resolutions are recorded per transaction, so you can read a weak provider properly: declines from issuers are a different problem from technical failures, and only one is the provider's to fix.
- 5
Test rather than assume
Traffic splitting distributes load between providers by percentage, priority, or balance, so a candidate can take a measured share of comparable traffic and be judged on results.
- 6
Act on what you find
Routing rules are configuration, so moving a segment from one provider to another is a rule change. The same report then shows whether the move did what you expected.
What you get
Each provider is judged on the traffic it actually handles, against the others handling the same kind.
Renewals negotiated with evidence
Walking into a pricing conversation with a provider's performance on your own segments, next to what the alternatives deliver, changes what you can ask for and what you can decline.
Weak segments identified before they become quarters
A provider may perform well overall and badly on one market or method. Segment-level comparison surfaces that while it is still one segment rather than a trend in the quarterly numbers.
New providers judged on results
Sending a measured share of traffic to a candidate and comparing it against the incumbent on the same segment replaces a decision based on a rate card with one based on what happened.
One dataset finance and payments both trust
Because approvals, volumes, and fees come from the same records, the conversation between finance and payment operations starts from agreed numbers rather than from two exports that disagree.
An Eastern European PSP raised conversion from 56.2% to 85.1%
When an Eastern European payment service provider moved its traffic to Corefy, its conversion rate stood at 56.2%. Routing was built on which provider or acquirer performed best for each type of payment, judged by card issuer, type and brand, authentication mode, customer location, and amount, with the cheaper provider chosen where performance was comparable. Over a year, conversion reached 85.1% while traffic grew threefold. None of those routing decisions could have been made without per-segment comparison behind them.