The Problem Insurance Platforms Face
Insurance core platforms manage the entire policy lifecycle — quoting, binding, billing, claims. But when it's time to collect a premium, settle a claim payment, or process a renewal, the platform hands off to someone else.
The carrier handles payment collection separately. Or the platform builds a brittle integration to one PSP that breaks the moment a second carrier needs a different processor.
This page compares the four approaches insurance platforms use to add payment execution — and explains which one fits the multi-carrier, multi-channel reality of modern insurance.
The Four Approaches
1. Direct Gateway Integration
Integrate directly with a payment gateway — Stripe, Adyen, Worldpay — and build payment flows into the platform.
What you get:
Full control over the payment experience
Direct relationship with the PSP
Well-documented APIs
What you don't get:
Multi-PSP support (each carrier's PSP requires a separate integration)
Voice payment capability (gateways are checkout-page-centric)
PCI scope management (the platform handles card data)
Multi-tenant architecture (gateways serve merchants, not platforms)
Time to live: 2-4 months per PSP PCI scope: Platform carries it — SAQ-D, annual QSA audit Carrier flexibility: One PSP per integration. 10 carriers = 10 integrations.
2. PayFac Model
Become a Payment Facilitator — either through a full PayFac licence or via Stripe Connect, Adyen for Platforms, or a managed PayFac service.
What you get:
Control over merchant onboarding
Revenue share on processing volume
Unified experience for carriers
What you don't get:
Carrier PSP flexibility (carriers mandate their PSP — they won't switch to yours)
Fast time to market (6-18 months for full PayFac, 3-6 months for managed)
Low compliance overhead (the platform takes on PCI, AML, KYC obligations)
Voice payment channels
Time to live: 6-18 months PCI scope: Platform owns it — plus AML/KYC, risk management Carrier flexibility: None. Carriers must use the platform's PSP.
For most insurance platforms, the PayFac model fails on the first constraint: carriers won't abandon their existing processor. See Embedded Payments Without Becoming a PayFac.
3. Payment Orchestrator
Use an orchestration platform — Primer, Spreedly — to abstract multiple PSP connections behind a single API.
What you get:
Multi-PSP routing through one integration
Transaction retry and failover logic
Unified reporting across PSPs
What you don't get:
Voice payment support (orchestrators are checkout-page-centric)
Payment links for premium collection
White-label merchant onboarding
Multi-tenant architecture designed for platforms
PCI scope reduction (the platform still handles card data in most orchestration setups)
Time to live: 2-6 months PCI scope: Platform carries it in most configurations Carrier flexibility: Good for routing, but designed for merchants — not multi-tenant platforms
Orchestration solves the wrong problem for insurance platforms. Orchestrators optimise routing for a merchant with multiple PSPs. Insurance platforms need each carrier to use their own PSP — a fundamentally different architecture. See Payment Orchestration vs Payment Layer.
4. The Payment Layer
A purpose-built layer that sits between the platform and any PSP. The platform integrates once. Each carrier uses their existing processor. Card data never touches the platform.
What you get:
Multi-PSP support (any carrier's PSP, through one integration)
Multi-channel payment execution (voice, links, embedded checkout)
Zero PCI scope for the platform (SAQ-A, no QSA audit)
White-label carrier onboarding and payment experiences
Revenue participation on premium volume
PCI DSS Level 1, ISO 27001, SOC 2 certification handled by the layer
What you don't get:
Direct PSP control (the layer manages PSP connections)
Full PayFac revenue margins (revenue share, not interchange ownership)
Time to live: Days to weeks PCI scope: The layer carries it — platform stays at zero scope Carrier flexibility: Any PSP. Any carrier. One integration.
Comparison Table
Gateway | PayFac | Orchestrator | Payment Layer | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Multi-carrier PSP support | One per integration | None (carriers must use yours) | Multiple (merchant-facing) | Any carrier's PSP |
Voice payments | No | No | No | Yes |
Payment links | Build it yourself | Limited | No | Yes (white-label) |
Embedded checkout | Build it yourself | Yes | Build it yourself | Yes (white-label) |
PCI scope | Platform carries SAQ-D | Platform carries it | Platform carries it | Layer carries it (SAQ-A) |
Carrier onboarding | Manual per carrier | PayFac KYC process | Manual per carrier | White-label, self-service |
Time to live | Months per PSP | 6-18 months | 2-6 months | Days to weeks |
Revenue model | None | Interchange margin | None | Revenue share |
Multi-tenant | No | Yes (heavy) | Limited | Yes (thin) |
Which Approach Fits Your Platform?
You need a direct gateway if:
You serve one carrier with one PSP
You only need web checkout
You're willing to handle PCI scope
Payment is a minor feature, not a strategic capability
You need a PayFac if:
Payment revenue is your primary business model
Your carriers don't have existing PSP preferences (unlikely in insurance)
You have 12+ months and $2M+ to invest in compliance infrastructure
You need an orchestrator if:
You're a single merchant optimising routing across your own PSPs
You don't need voice payments or payment links
Multi-tenancy isn't a requirement
You need The Payment Layer if:
You serve multiple carriers, each with their own PSP
You need voice payments for phone renewals and collections
You need payment links for overdue premium collection
PCI scope should not be your platform's problem
You want to ship payment execution in weeks, not quarters
How Shuttle Fits
Shuttle is The Payment Layer for insurance core platforms. One integration from the platform. Any carrier's PSP — 40+ supported. Voice, links, and embedded checkout. PCI DSS Level 1, ISO 27001, and SOC 2 certified.
Allianz runs call centre payments through Shuttle across 3 countries. An anonymised insurance core platform uses Shuttle to provide native payment execution across its carrier base — with per-carrier PSP routing and zero PCI scope for the platform.
Average outcomes:
$360K annual saving per platform
$2M PCI compliance cost eliminated
12 months of development time saved
Related Reading
Payments for Insurance Core Platforms — the complete guide to embedded payment execution for insurance
PCI-Compliant Payment Architecture for Insurance Platforms — zero-scope architecture for voice, links, and checkout
Gateway vs Orchestrator vs PayFac vs Payment Layer — the canonical comparison across all four categories
Embedded Payments Without Becoming a PayFac — why most platforms shouldn't own the payment relationship
PayFac Alternatives for Platforms — the full landscape of PayFac alternatives
Shuttle vs Building In-House — the real cost of building payment infrastructure yourself
*Book a discovery call to explore how Shuttle adds payment execution to your insurance platform — or see how it works for platforms.*