ovum decision matrix - selecting a white-label mobile .../media/accenture/conversion-as… ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Publication Date: 04 Dec 2014 | Product code: IT0003-000633
Gilles Ubaghs
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 2
Summary
Catalyst
Market expectations of mobile payments remain sky high, with an ever-growing number of consumer-
facing platforms and services available. The mechanics of how mobile payments operate and what
functions they offer are also broad-ranging, including peer-to-peer (P2P), remote, and proximity
payments, and they continue to diversify. For issuing banks this poses a particular challenge: they
must engage with these emerging technologies if they are to avoid being disintermediated and losing
their positioning with consumers, and, more critically, becoming a back-of-wallet proposition. As a
result, all issuing banks are now being forced to develop their own mobile payments roadmap in some
form.
Central to mobile payments is the mobile wallet, the consumer-facing platform that acts as the front
end for wider mobile payment services and functionality. Deploying a wallet platform capable of
integrating future changes and remaining flexible to market developments is key to the long-term
positioning of banks in the mobile payments space. Few banks will have the resources or desire to
create a mobile wallet platform from scratch, and white-label mobile wallet providers are poised to
help meet this demand by integrating into bank payment infrastructure more effectively.
Payment providers must choose the white-label mobile wallet platform that best supports their specific
needs and strategic goals. This report provides a reference guide for payment providers by profiling
the leading platforms and vendors servicing the emerging global white-label mobile wallet space.
Ovum view
The mobile wallet has for several years now been among the most hotly contested areas of payments
innovation, and is expected by many to be the long-term future of payments, with major commercial
battles forming over who will control it. The concept of the wallet continues to evolve while the market
learns from the many initial successes and failures within the mobile wallet space. As such, the mobile
wallet is now a complex service delivery mechanism combining a range of functionality far beyond
simply placing a credit card into a phone.
This has led to the emergence of the white-label mobile wallet platform, offered by an increasing
number of vendors to banks, telcos, and retailers alike. As mobile wallets are software-driven
platforms, any organization with the time and resources to spare could effectively build their own from
scratch. However, not all organizations will have these resources, and even if they do it may take
them considerable effort to gain the same functionality as existing off-the-shelf white-label platforms.
The white-label mobile wallet is aimed at providing a range of flexible and, critically, configurable
functionality to potential wallet operators tying together front- and back-end systems, or providing
outright payments infrastructure. Despite the huge interest in mobile wallets, the vendor space here is
nascent: in many instances, small-scale start-ups have more deployments than major tier-1
international technology vendors.
Ovum believes that the mobile wallet space is now entering a new phase of development, particularly
given the launch of Apple Pay but regardless of the long-term international success of this platform.
Banks and other potential wallet operators must now solidify their long-term payments roadmaps, and
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 3
the mobile wallet remains the central component in any mobile payments strategy. Mobile wallet
platforms are critical to wider payment innovation strategies, and the selection of a particular vendor’s
platform will have an impact on payment capabilities and market positioning. As the mobile payments
market hits a critical period of growth, success or failure now will have repercussions in the longer
term.
Key findings � There is still everything to play for in the wallet space. Even small-scale wallet vendors are, in
many instances, having a bigger impact on the market than global tier-1 technology providers.
� The mobile wallet market has been hindered by conflicting business models and lack of buy-in
from many payment providers. However, the market is now poised for major growth, due to
Apple Pay and tokenization and host-card emulation (HCE) technologies.
� The mobile wallet platform space is still at an early stage of development, and as of yet there
is no clear market leader in terms of market impact, technology, or execution capability.
� All of the key mobile wallet platforms on the market place a strong focus on flexible, modular
service-oriented architecture (SOA) with an emphasis on future-proofing functionality and
remaining agnostic in relation to authentication methods.
� Implementation methods do not yet have a clear best-practice model for the banking space,
and the market is seeing the development of on-site, hosted, and payments-as-a-service
delivery models.
Defining a white-label mobile wallet platform
The mobile wallets acts as a focal point for transaction services
The concept of the mobile wallet is surprisingly difficult to define, with many payment providers using
the term with slightly different meanings. This is compounded by the often interchangeable use of the
terms “digital wallet” and “mobile wallet.” Defining these terms clearly at the outset is critical to gaining
a better understanding of these technologies.
The digital wallet is defined by Ovum as “an integrated service that allows users to complete
electronic transactions using one or more stored authentication identifiers held securely by a wallet
platform.”
The mobile wallet is a subset of the digital wallet category, and it refers to a digital wallet service that
has been optimized for a mobile device, typically through the use of dedicated software such as an
app. Aside from this, mobile and digital wallets remain broadly similar, with most of the same core
capabilities. The mobile wallet, however, benefits from its ability to make use of the location-based
services on mobile devices, so it is typically capable of offering a significant array of value-added
services alongside the central payment functionality.
The concept of the digital wallet has been evolving over several years, and wallet offerings have
progressed greatly from their earliest online iterations. Since then, however, the concept of the digital
and now mobile wallet has changed in line with broader technological capabilities, with many
stakeholders defining wallets in different ways as the functionalities and types of provider on offer
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 4
expand. The lack of agreement in the market on what exactly is a digital wallet underlines the
market’s nascent nature.
For consumers, wallets store credentials for multiple uses
On a consumer level, a digital wallet serves as a container for a variety of credentials and identifiers,
providing a variety of functions and services. This is increasingly being done on a cloud-driven basis.
This can include web-based services, where payment credentials are stored and then managed for
transactions using usernames and passwords, as typified by PayPal. A mobile wallet in particular also
includes the use of dedicated applications and, increasingly, hardware, to provide a broader range of
services and ensure that transactions are secure, for example through the use of a secure element
(SE).
A wallet platform includes capabilities to manage account details and receive messages from wallet
providers, merchants, and advertisers. The earliest iterations of the mobile wallet were focused on
simply imitating a payment card stored within a device, but mobile wallets are increasingly emerging
as full mobile-commerce platforms in their own right, with payments just one function among many.
Furthermore, the market is now seeing the emergence of wallet platforms that enable payment
functionalities in other applications through the use of APIs.
For enterprises, wallets combine back-end services into one consumer-facing
platform
From a wallet-provider perspective, a wallet serves a similar function, in that it acts as a focal point for
a variety of back-end services and transaction processes in a single consumer-facing interface. This
increasingly includes the ability of stakeholders to collect various data types from the wallet, such as
transaction histories, social media, and location data, and use that to feed offers and services back
into the wallet platform. For large vendors with a wide portfolio of services, a wallet platform can act
as a wraparound for a broad array of their existing technologies and services.
For smaller vendors, meanwhile, through a heavy focus on using modular architecture and separate
integration layers within the platform architecture, the focus is on enabling the integration of any back-
end service into the wallet platform. For some wallet platforms, this also includes direct connections to
back-office payment processing infrastructure such as payment switches, meaning that wallets can
operate using payments-as-a-service delivery models.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 5
Figure 1: Mobile wallet platforms provide a focal point for front- and back-end services
Source: Ovum
Mobile banking remains a distinct platform category, for now
There is a significant overlap between mobile banking and mobile wallets, but although there is a
close relationship between the two, Ovum believes that there is a clear distinction. Critically, a mobile
wallet will typically plug into a financial institution’s payments engine platform, while mobile banking
will include all other aspects of consumer banking services on a mobile channel and plug into the
broader banking infrastructure. The distinction between mobile banking and mobile wallets is likely to
become increasingly blurred as banks increasingly offer payments and P2P services through mobile
banking channels, and through the inclusion of payment capabilities in other applications through the
use of APIs.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 6
Furthermore, while mobile banking can realistically only be offered by banks and, to a lesser degree,
personal financial management (PFM) providers, mobile wallets are available from a variety of non-
deposit-holding banking institutions such as online players, telecoms firms, merchants, and third-party
providers. Nonetheless, regardless of who provides the wallet, these platforms will need to connect to
a payments engine, potentially through a partner payment processor or a financial institution.
Most banks do not have a unified mobile banking and payments strategy
Most financial institutions continue to operate in siloed, product-led divisions, with payments
constituting one aspect of the business and online banking and current accounts operating as their
own unique products and areas of the business. As a result, many banking institutions do not yet have
a unified mobile banking and mobile wallet strategy, and treat the two as wholly separate categories.
However as mobile engagement increases and consumers increasingly seek a unified, omnichannel
service, the dichotomy between mobile banking and mobile payments will likely fade amid a broader
bank-led mobile initiative. Most banks today pay lip service to enabling an omnichannel view of their
customers; if this environment ever emerges, a more unified mobile experience will be a critical
component of their customer engagement strategies.
White-label platforms are gaining ground
A mobile wallet platform is more than purely a front-layer user-interface experience: it must be able to
incorporate a range of services and functionality. Although some large-scale providers have been able
to develop their own mobile wallets on a purely bespoke basis, the last few years have seen the
emergence of white-label mobile wallet platform providers.
These providers typically offer a suite of their own in-house services tied together within a wallet
software application layer, or they provide a flexible interface in which wallet providers are able to tie
together their own infrastructure and back-end processes. However, the complexities of payments
mean that no two issuers’ infrastructure is the same, and, as such, most providers will offer a
combination of some level of back-end service and a flexible approach to integration with third-party
services.
White-label wallet platform vendors remain distinct from customer-facing services such as PayPal or
Visa Checkout. They do not provide the full wallet service direct to consumers, but instead offer a
range of software and associated services to wallet operators. As such, they are not consumer
brands, they are purely B2B service providers. As these emerging wallet platform providers develop
their platforms and learn from their growing numbers of implementations, they are increasingly able to
“templatize” their approaches.
For a provider seeking to launch its own wallet, be it on its own, as part of a consortium, or as a
widget on another wallet platform, these white-label wallet developers will become increasingly
critical: they provide a more cost-effective approach than building a platform from scratch, and they
will set the broader parameters of any wallet ecosystem.
There is ample space for start-ups
As it is such a new market, the white-label mobile wallet platform space is far from mature, and it is
characterized by both the large number of start-ups entering the space and the variety of services
being offered by larger, more established financial service players. Tellingly, even major financial
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 7
services technology vendors remain at an early stage of development, with a limited number of live
deployments compared to their usual market offerings.
There are, as yet, no dominant market players, and there is scope for smaller-scale start-ups to gain
traction. This window of opportunity is rapidly narrowing, however. Consolidation is inevitable, as
major payment incumbents seek to increase their capabilities and starts-up continue to develop new
and innovative ways of developing the mobile wallet space.
Interestingly, even seemingly competitive wallet platform vendors often have close links and work in
tandem via partnership networks or even through the use of one other’s technology. Notably, FIS has
a close relationship with startup Paydiant, employing Paydiant APIs for its consumer-facing front end.
There is no clear best practice on wallet platform delivery models
Potential wallet providers selecting a platform vendor must ensure that their chosen platform provides
a wide range of implementation options and technology support. Unlike with many other app-based
services, the sensitivities and, in many instances, regulations surrounding payment transactions flows
mean implementation options for wallet providers may be complex. As yet, there is no agreed-upon
best practice for banks and other wallet operators, regardless of the scale of their programs.
For both platform vendors and wallet operators, implementation can follow an on-premise model,
whereby the platform is owned and managed by the wallet operator; a hosted model, whereby
services are provided via cloud-based technologies; or a combination of these, including through fully
managed payments-as-a-service delivery models. Cloud-based models will often provide advantages
in terms of cost and flexibility, but there may be security and regulatory barriers to their wider use.
New technologies such as HCE and tokenization services are unlikely to settle best practice in wallet
delivery models in the near term; the environment is further muddled by additional technologies and
methods of implementation, all of which will have a direct impact on the revenue models and
profitability of any wallet program. Unsurprisingly, most wallet platforms are now reacting accordingly,
and either already offer these technologies or include them in their payments roadmaps.
Potential wallet operators are now forming their strategies
The decision about whether or not a potential provider should enter the mobile wallet market is not a
simple one, and depends wholly on the context, capabilities, and long-term strategic goals of the
institution in question. However, the long-awaited announcement of Apple Pay in 2014 has impelled
the market to act, driving decision-making on if, when, and how to enter the wallet space.
Although not all banks and financial institutions need to work with a third-party provider, it is critical
that they gain an understanding of the market and their strategic options now, to help develop their
roadmap strategy in the longer term. For a bank or payment provider, this decision-making includes
whether they launch their own branded platform or partner with another provider.
A mobile wallet is not necessarily a financial-institution-led service, and indeed most services in the
market today have been launched by other types of players. The primary potential providers of a
mobile wallet today include:
� financial institutions including payment schemes and issuing banks
� telecoms companies, both at operators and device manufacturers
� merchant-led wallets, typically on a closed-loop basis
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 8
� third-party providers including major consumer technology providers such as Apple and
Google, start-ups, and specialists such as loyalty providers.
Potential providers are faced with three distinct operating models
Potential providers of a mobile wallet are faced with three key strategies in operating a mobile wallet
service: they can go it alone, join a coalition, or partake in another provider’s wallet. For all three of
these operational models, providers can either build their own proprietary wallet software platforms or
use a white-label wallet platform provider.
In a “go it alone” operating model, a provider will create and manage its own branded wallet service
and act as the major consumer-facing brand on the service. This is only an option for midsize to large
players that have the resources to do so on an economically viable scale.
Coalition or consortium models consist of a number of players coming together to operate a wallet
service, and can include multiple players within a specific provider segment, such as telecoms or
merchants, or all varieties of providers. These coalitions can vary from simple bilateral partnerships to
larger joint ventures and industry-wide coalitions involving a variety of players. The most well-known
coalitions include the Softcard (formerly ISIS) consortium between three of the four major US
telecoms operators and the upcoming merchant-led coalition CurrentC (formerly MCX).
The third operating model is to enable active participation in another provider’s wallet. This can
involve the development of a specific widget or app for use in another wallet, or a partnership that
allows for the easier enablement and addition of payment account details or customer membership of
another provider’s wallet. This participation operating model is particularly suited to financial
institutions, which will enable their existing card accounts to be used in a variety of wallets.
Ovum notes that participation in another wallet does not negate the possibility of a wallet provider
developing its own wallet in a “go it alone” strategy. One example of active participation is Citigroup,
which partnered with Google Wallet when it first launched, allowing for easier enrollment and direct
connection to the cardholding account, while also developing its own branded wallet and participating
in Apple Pay.
Participation in other wallets is likely to grow substantially in the near term, as wallet platform
providers increasingly enable payment functionality in non-wallet apps. This means that an underlying
mobile wallet infrastructure can be deployed on a more widespread basis, allowing merchants, banks,
and so on to provide an unintermediated interface to their clients.
For several years, the biggest challenge facing mobile wallets has been the competitive race to avoid
disintermediation. However, allowing their own payment functionality to be used more widely can
cement a payment provider’s positioning within a broader commercial ecosystem while allowing
relevant stakeholders, including merchants and telcos, to maintain their customer-facing relationships.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 9
Figure 2: Providers’ operating strategies and wallet designs are now taking shape
Source: Ovum
Horizontal or vertical wallet design has major repercussions on functionality
Once the operating strategy has been formulated, the next step is to decide on a wallet design, and
whether the platform will be a horizontal or vertical wallet. The concepts of horizontal and vertical
mobile wallets were initially conceived by industry body Mobey Forum in a series of influential white
papers. They essentially refers to whether the wallet is an open- or closed-garden ecosystem.
A horizontal or open wallet refers to a wallet that is open to third parties and allows them to develop
additional services that are made available to consumers via the wallet. The wallet provider in a
horizontal wallet will hold an ownership position in relation to the central transaction functionality and
the parameters of the wider wallet, but will leave much of its wallet ecosystem open to other parties. In
essence, the horizontal wallet operates like an app store, allowing for a broad range of services to be
developed and customized by the end user and developers of value-added services. Wallet platforms,
through their control over the wallet security keys and credentials, are then able to manage secure-
data transactions for functions such as near-field communications (NFC). The range of services
potentially on offer via a mobile wallet platform means that a horizontal wallet is better able to adapt to
market innovation.
In a vertical or closed wallet, by contrast, the wallet provider has strict control over all functionality in
the wallet and acts as the provider of all value-added services. Although third parties could, in theory,
take part in a vertical wallet, this will be through a more formalized partnership process that would be
seen in a more open-ecosystem horizontal wallet. The provider in a vertical wallet benefits from
having total control over the ecosystem and can therefore push its own value-added services.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 10
Figure 3: A vertical wallet provides greater control but less flexibility than a horizontal wallet
Source: Ovum
The increasing rate of payments diversification and the widening potential use cases for a mobile
wallet means that vertical wallets will likely struggle to keep pace with wider market innovations.
Indeed, evidence from the major wallet initiatives launched to date suggests that neither consumers
nor merchants have taken well to vertical-wallet approaches as they have proved lacking in
functionality and difficult to extend. Payments on their own are not enough of a draw to drive mobile
wallet usage; creating a broad ecosystem of functionality, services, and compatibility increasingly
looks like the surer path to success.
The mobile wallet market has been hindered by business model issues
Although it has long been gestating, the mobile wallet market has so far struggled to gain mass
acceptance outside key platforms such as PayPal’s mobile-app-based solutions and merchant-
specific offerings such as the Starbucks wallet. Much of the challenge in expanding the wallet market
has been in forming a coherent business model for the mobile wallet and indeed for broader mobile
payments, in light of the various stakeholders and competitors vying to gain a foothold in the market.
These business model challenges have been exacerbated by unclear technology specifications
adding to the confusion in the market, particularly for proximity payments using NFC. NFC for
payment usage requires an SE component to be stored, somehow, within the mobile device. The SE
could be stored either directly in the device, on the universal integrated circuit card (UICC) SIM, or on
a removable storage device such as a micro SD.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 11
In any model, maintaining the SE as a separate element meant that the payment credentials were
held outside the handset’s operating system, greatly increasing security. This meant that NFC-based
transactions could be processed as a card present (CP) transaction. However, the positioning of the
SE in the device was a major point of contention, because the owner of the SE held sway over the
rest of the wallet model, as it essentially acted as the gatekeeper of NFC-based services on the
wallet.
Inevitably, this led to much rapid development by potential key players eager to develop a dominant
position in the mobile wallet space. In particular, the telecoms operators pushed for SIM-based SE, as
renting out space on the SE to third parties would generate revenue for them.
Notably, and in a move watched by payment providers globally, the US market saw a standoff
between emerging wallet providers in the form of Google Wallet and the major telecoms operators
under the Isis consortium. Although first launched as an NFC-based mobile wallet in 2011, Google
Wallet was blocked from all NFC-capable handsets on the networks of Isis members while they
developed their own wallet platform.
These struggles over NFC and wider mobile wallet models have caused most banks to take a wait-
and-see approach to the mobile wallet space before launching their own or taking part in any broader
mobile wallet initiatives. However, with the development of both HCE and tokenization technologies,
banks are now being forced to take a position and form their wallet roadmaps for the longer term.
HCE and tokenization are galvanizing the payments market
In 2013, Google announced that it was officially supporting HCE in the latest version of its Android
operating system. HCE technology allows mobile wallet platforms to bypass the device-specific SE
and store credentials in the cloud instead. A standard SE model replicates a smart card through
hardware installed on the device. HCE, by contrast, is able to emulate a smart card through cloud-
based software protocols. This meant that for the first time, mobile wallet providers were capable of
launching full NFC services without the need for telco involvement. Since the official support from
Google, HCE has been fully endorsed by Visa and MasterCard, and interest in the technology has
soared.
The launch of Apple Pay in 2014 marked a major milestone for the mobile wallet market and has
galvanized much of the payments industry to quickly reassess its long-term payments roadmaps.
Apple Pay notably makes heavy use of tokenization technology, meaning that the wallet platform itself
never gains access to secure payment credentials. This also means that Apple Pay allows for lower
transaction processing rates than many other mobile proximity payment services, as the payment is
processed as a CP transaction rather than a card not present (CNP) transaction.
Although Apple Pay’s long-term positioning will take several years to become fully clear, its use of
tokenization has piqued the interest of many in the market and, unsurprisingly, many wallet platforms
already support tokenization or plan to support it in the near term.
Further developments in wallet technologies are inevitable, making flexibility key
Alongside HCE and tokenization, other technologies, such as QR codes and hands-free payments,
have developed a strong foothold in the wallet space, while other technologies such as Bluetooth low-
energy (BLE) are expected to make a major impact in the future. QR codes are already a major
authentication method for wallets at the point of sale (POS), and are central to the Starbucks wallet,
arguably the world’s most successful wallet to date. A single winner-takes-all outcome for competing
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 12
wallet technologies looks increasingly unlikely, and the need to achieve merchant acceptance means
that it is more likely that a variety of technologies within the wallet space will continue to develop and
evolve concurrently.
Unsurprisingly, vendors in the mobile wallet platform space have adapted to these variations in
technology by developing their platforms as modular software-based frameworks that are flexible to
further development and changes. Rather than a proprietary system wholly reliant on a single
authentication or back-office technology, modern white-label wallet platforms place a strong emphasis
on future-proofing and compatibility with emerging technology trends.
As such, these platforms will help to drive growth in the overall market: as they provide flexible
frameworks on which wallet operators can develop future iterations and technologies, banks and other
potential providers will be less tied into heavy investment in any particular technology. Mobile wallet
platforms extend far beyond NFC and are increasingly agnostic in terms of the technologies they
employ. With broader payments diversification, this trend is unlikely to change.
The appetite for payments investment is big, and this will drive wallet growth
With the hype of the launch of Apple Pay, the further development of HCE technology, and the
growing ubiquity of smartphone technology in many regions, the mobile wallet market is set to see a
period of renewed growth and investment in the near term. Many providers have observed the
lessons from this first wave of development and will now be more focused on building the customer
experience in a well-designed and flexible wallet.
As highlighted in Ovum’s 2014 ICT Enterprise Insights survey of IT decision-makers in the retail
banking space, mobile channel plays are the top-priority investment areas in payments products over
the next 18 months (see Figure 4). The mobile/digital wallet space was ranked the top investment
priority by 23% respondents, the most by a fairly strong margin. Mobile proximity payments,
incorporating NFC and QR codes, were second top overall (ranked top by 17.6% of respondents).
Despite the many high-profile failures in the mobile wallet and proximity payments space, from the
likes of Google, Softcard (formerly ISIS) in the US, and numerous telco-led ventures, in most markets
banks and issuers have largely not yet made mobile wallet plays, and they remain an unknown
quantity. Apple Pay was announced after the ICT Enterprise Insights survey was conducted, but
Ovum believes that the priority levels of mobile wallets and mobile proximity payments would probably
have risen further.
The development of HCE technology and tokenization is expected to lead to a significant increase in
mobile wallet development, as the use of NFC at the POS is perceived by many as the ultimate
endpoint of mobile wallet interface development. The route to market has been notably simplified for
non-telco providers, and the global mobile wallet market is beginning to see the first launches of HCE-
enabled, NFC bank-led mobile wallets, with more expected to follow soon. As the route to
implementation for mobile wallets becomes easier, growth will increase and competition will intensify.
The lack of contactless infrastructure and, to a lesser degree, NFC-enabled handsets remains an
issue in many markets, but the simplification of the upfront costs and complex partnerships previously
required will drive rapid development of the mobile wallet space.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 13
Figure 4: Mobile wallets were the top payments IT investment priority for banks in 2014
Source: Ovum ICT Enterprise Insights
Vendor platform selection The report gives a quantitative and qualitative representation of Ovum's view of the competitive
market environment in the white-label mobile wallet platform sector.
Inclusion criteria
Although the list of vendors here is not intended to include all possible providers, Ovum believes it is
representative of the market, and this Decision Matrix offers an in-depth analysis of the leading
vendors of white-label mobile wallet platforms for use in the global payments sector.
The early stage of development of the white-label mobile wallet platform market means that significant
numbers of players continue to enter and exit the market through a broader trend of industry
consolidation. At this early phase of market development, Ovum presents a selection of key players
with major deployments either live or in development, representing significant approaches to the
mobile wallet space.
The seven vendors and their platforms are considered in this report are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Vendors and products included in the Ovum Decision Matrix
Vendor White-label mobile wallet platform
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 14
Accenture Accenture Mobile Wallet
FIS FIS Mobile Wallet
Mahindra Comviva mobiquity Wallet
Paydiant Paydiant mobile wallet platform
SAP SAP Mobile Platform
Sequent Open Wallet Platform
Toro Akami Wallet
Source: Ovum
Although there are a number of smaller regional players and other midsize to large players, the
vendors shown here include some of the largest platforms by market presence, alongside high-growth
players with regional coverage and a particularly strong platform offering. The decision to include a
vendor and its platform for evaluation in this report was based on the following criteria:
� The platform must be judged, in an initial assessment by Ovum analysts, as having mid- to
long-term potential.
� The platform must be applicable to financial service players and/or existing payments
providers.
� The platform must currently be available in multiple geographies, or hold a significant position
in its home geography with potential for future expansion.
� The platform must provide Ovum with sufficient information to allow an accurate assessment,
including a complete response to Ovum's request for information (RFI) document and an in-
depth briefing.
Overall assessment
Assessment scope
In this Decision Matrix, Ovum provides a summary of each vendor's white-label mobile wallet platform
capabilities based on a quantitative assessment of its influence on the global wallet market and the
quality and breadth of the functionality provided by its platform and underlying technology. Alongside
this, Ovum provides an assessment of each vendor’s execution capabilities in providing support and
resources to aid implementation.
Enterprises seeking a mobile wallet platform are advised to consider their own strategic goals as the
top priority in selecting a mobile wallet vendor, and the profiles shown here represent among the best,
but not all, of the players on the market today.
Achieving the full value of a white-label mobile wallet platform is critically dependent upon the
platform’s ability to execute a payment provider’s overall strategy. A decision to purchase a particular
platform should therefore be based on a broad array of factors, including the degree of alignment
between the platform’s functionality and underlying technology on the one hand, and an institution's
own particular business and payment functionality requirements, project scope, organization size, and
regional location on the other. As a result, Ovum's assessment should only be considered within the
context of a payment provider’s specific requirements.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 15
Methodology
The assessment is based on the following methodology:
� Based on Ovum's initial assessment of the retail mobile wallet market globally, a number of
vendors were invited to respond to a detailed RFI that required them to provide data and
supporting documentation around three primary criteria: technology, execution, and market
impact.
� In addition to the RFI response, Ovum invited vendors to provide solution briefings. Analysis
for the three primary criteria was based on a scoring assessment exercise undertaken for a
number of sub-criteria. For each response within the RFI that aligned to the respective sub-
criteria, Ovum rated vendors on a scale of 1–10 based on a consistent set of best-practice
criteria or benchmarks defined by Ovum. We then aggregated the sub-criteria scores to
provide a score for each primary criterion.
� Weightings are used in the analysis to calculate scores for both sub-criteria and primary
criteria. The weightings are based on analysis of the typical importance of each criterion in the
selection process for mobile wallet platforms.
Ovum ratings
In this Decision Matrix, Ovum provides a summary of each vendor's mobile wallet platform capabilities
based on a quantitative assessment of its influence on the global white-label mobile wallet platform
market and the quality and breadth of the functionality provided by its platform and underlying
technology. Ovum also provides guidance for institutions looking to deploy mobile wallet platforms,
and advises whether they should shortlist, consider, or explore platforms from the vendors assessed
in this report. Ovum defines each of these recommendations based on the vendors' positions in the
market:
� Market leader: This category represents the leading platforms that we believe are worthy of a
place on most technology selection shortlists. The vendor has established a commanding
market position with a product that is widely accepted as best-of-breed.
� Market challenger: The platforms in this category have a good market positioning and the
vendors are selling and marketing the product well. The products offer competitive
functionality and good price-performance proposition, and should be considered as part of the
technology selection.
� Market follower: Platforms in this category are typically aimed at meeting the requirements of
a particular kind of customer. As a tier-1 offering, they should be explored as part of the
technology selection.
The wallet platforms presented here are not a complete compendium of all available platforms on the
market, and the selection is intended to serve as an introduction to some of the key players now
emerging. The immaturity of the wallet market, highlighted by the limited number of clients even of
global technology providers, highlights the significant scope for further expansion in the space, and all
of the players discussed in this report provide a potentially strong platform to meet most wallet needs.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 16
Acccenture, FIS, and SAP are market leaders, for now
Looking at the market from the perspective of financial service providers or existing banking and
payment players, there are a handful of early front-runners, including Accenture, FIS, and SAP. This
is largely due to their strong abilities to execute wallet deployments in a complex financial services
environment, and their international support capabilities. Although wallet services can be operated by
a variety of potential providers, financial services institutions undoubtedly maintain the most complex
infrastructure, and as such may require greater levels of implementation support.
Ovum notes, however, that due to the immaturity of the market, the majority of players are
challengers, and competition remains fierce. Large vendors may have an initial edge with banks and
payment providers, but there is nothing to stop the numerous challengers on the market from gaining
a stronger presence in the near term. As such, Ovum recommends that all players discussed in this
report are worthy of consideration and should not be dismissed out of hand by any enterprise players.
Figure 5 shows Ovum’s assessment of the vendors analyzed.
Figure 5: The Ovum Decision Matrix for white-label mobile wallet platform vendors
Source: Ovum. NB: The chart shows a zoomed-in view of the vendors’ relative positioning
Execution capabilities are critical to the market leadership of Accenture, FIS,
and SAP
Overall, the various platforms now available within the white-label mobile wallet platform market are
positioned in close alignment. The immaturity of the market is highlighted by the fact that the overall
market impact of all the vendors surveyed is fairly evenly spread, with even small-scale startups, in
some instances, having a larger market impact than global tier-1 technology vendors.
In particular, the technology assessment score shows that these are all reliable and robust systems
offering a high degree of flexibility, predominantly based on modular SOA. The future-proofing of the
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 17
solutions for further developments is a key feature that all vendors are pursuing, understandably so
considering the relative immaturity of the broader market. Newer platforms, such as Accenture’s, in
particular, place particular emphasis on the use of APIs to allow the integration and development of
value-added services as part of a wallet program, and this flexibility will be increasingly critical over
time. However, all of the platforms surveyed here are capable of providing a robust mobile wallet
service with a full range of consumer-facing features.
One of the key distinctions between platforms is the ability to connect to a vendor’s own systems and
services, with providers such as FIS able to offer a full end-to-end range of services that tie in directly
with its wallet. Alongside this is the ease of integration with third-party systems, for both payments and
value-added services. The complexities of existing payments infrastructure vary widely by financial
institution, and closer inspection of vendors by enterprises on a case-by-case basis will help to
pinpoint a suitable vendor.
Execution abilities are higher among larger organizations such as SAP, Accenture, and FIS, which
have significantly greater resources than smaller start-ups. These capabilities are particularly crucial
for existing payment providers and financial institutions because of legacy infrastructure complexities.
This marks out these vendors as market leaders, at least for the time being.
However, even here, smaller players have in numerous instances successfully deployed platforms for
major tier-1 wallet providers, including, on occasion, the financial services space, so they should not
be dismissed out of hand by organizations of any scale. Even smaller players such as Toro have
successfully launched major national platforms for tier-1 enterprises. As market growth accelerates in
the wallet space, it remains to be seen if smaller players find their resources stretched or if they can
maintain their velocity and support market growth.
For the time being, Ovum believes it is more accurate to rate all active mobile wallet players as
market leaders or challengers. The market is so new that no vendor can be said to be a follower, and
this makes the selection of a platform particularly challenging for enterprises. In time, and as the
market matures, a clearer pattern of leaders and laggards will develop, particularly when more
deployments go live.
Primary assessment criteria
Evaluation categories
As the competitive landscape may vary significantly across the evaluation categories in this Decision
Matrix – technology, execution, and market impact – it is important to consider these categories
separately in order to develop a more complete understanding of each vendor's particular strengths
and challenges. The following section presents a vendor comparison in each category and discusses
how they vary across the sub-criteria.
Ovum notes that the scores given here reflect a vendor’s positioning against other vendors. Hence,
where averages are discussed, this reflects an average of the vendors shown here and not of the
overall market.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 18
Market impact assessment
� Mobile wallet global market presence: An assessment of a vendor's mobile wallet installed
base within the global payments sector. The total number of deployments by region is
included in this measure, with a greater weighting for deployments in mature markets.
� Platform market growth: An assessment of new mobile wallet platform clients acquired by
the vendor in the preceding 12 months. Consideration is also given to major client
deployments that have achieved substantial growth.
� Vendor scale: An assessment of a vendor's direct presence, scale, and resources within
various geographic regions, including the level of staff that the vendor has dedicated to mobile
wallet products.
� Scale of wallet deployments: An assessment of the scale of the wallet programs being
deployed by the vendor, including the number of wallets in use and the typical monthly
transaction rates by value and volume.
� Vendor’s mobile wallet focus: An assessment of a vendor's history and activity in the
mobile wallet platform market, the relative importance of the mobile wallet sector to the
vendor's revenue stream, recent mobile wallet-related acquisitions, and the organizational
structure supporting the vendor's activities in the mobile wallet sector.
Figure 6: Vendors’ market impact assessment by sub-criteria
Source: Ovum
Although the largest organizations active in the mobile wallet space have the highest level of overall
market impact, the relative strength of even small players here, such as Toro and Sequent, highlights
the fact the wallet vendor space is still up for grabs in terms of gaining major market presence.
Overall, SAP had the highest mobile wallet presence due to its length of time in the market and
deployments in numerous emerging markets. Many of the platforms reviewed here are extremely
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 19
new, notably those of Mahindra Comviva and Accenture, and with further deployments their market
presence will expand dramatically.
Platform growth is positive for all players surveyed here. SAP has the most momentum, again largely
due to its longevity in the market and proven track record. The financial services sector is by nature a
conservative industry, and it is unsurprising that vendors with more deployments under their belt will
continue to see the most growth. However, there is scope for newer platforms to expand rapidly,
particularly where they have established a strong presence on a regional basis or with any high-profile
clients.
The scale of wallet deployments here again bears no direct relationship to the size of the vendor in
question. Once more, SAP has the highest ratings, followed by much smaller vendor Paydiant, which
has undergone several high-profile platform launches in the US. This again highlights the continued
potential for smaller specialists to gain traction in the wallet space.
Technology assessment
� Platform architecture: An assessment of a vendor's platform architecture through
examination of the platform design approach, use of SOA principles, operating
system/database dependencies, integration approach, and adoption of standards.
� Platform roadmap: An assessment of the range, innovation, and granularity of a vendor's
platform roadmap by assessing both the functional and technology developments planned for
the next 24 months.
� Core functionality: An assessment of the breadth and depth of functionality to support
mobile wallet requirements, the ability to deploy functions on a standalone basis, and
compliance with standard transaction methods such as NFC and QR codes.
� Multi-region support: An assessment of the international capabilities of a vendor's mobile
wallet platform, including the number of languages currently supported in live deployments,
support for non-Latin characters in the mobile wallet interface, and how multi-language
support is provided in the platform itself.
� Platform configuration and integration: An assessment of the flexibility,
comprehensiveness, and ease with which product, process workflows, and system features
can be defined within a platform and how easily the platform can be integrated with other
services. Achieved by examining configuration toolsets, product group capability, the degree
to which configuration is performed by business users, modeling functionality, training needs,
and typical product implementation options and timescales.
� Security and fraud: An assessment of a vendor’s approach to security and fraud detection
and prevention, incorporating both the security of the platform itself and compliance with
international standards, and any capabilities for fraud detection and prevention.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 20
Figure 7: Vendors’ technology assessment by sub-criteria
Source: Ovum
From a technology perspective, all of the white-label mobile wallet platforms surveyed provide a solid
level of functionality. They are all focused on using future-proofed, modular SOA that is intended to
allow easy integration with third-party and back-office systems and a high degree of configuration
through the use of APIs, SDKs, and dedicated integration layers. The gap between these different
technology platforms is minimal. For potential wallet operators, this poses a particular challenge, as
there are no clear front-runners in the market yet, particularly as so many of these platforms are
relatively untested without further deployments.
Key to selecting a wallet platform, therefore, is a close inspection of delivery models and wallet
providers’ own plans for integration into their back-end systems. Some platforms, such as those of
FIS and Paydiant, remain primarily focused on the US market, due to their heavy integration directly
with regional payment switches and infrastructure through the platform itself. Other platforms, such as
those of Sequent and Toro, provide a more flexible payments-as-a-service model, providing the
mobile wallet as an infrastructure solution capable of enabling payments across functions and even
apps.
The technological gaps between these vendors will become more apparent when more platforms
have been deployed and are live in the market. However, for the time being, potential wallet operators
will need to assess their preferred deployment options early on as part of any vendor selection
process.
Execution assessment
� Vendor support capability: An assessment of a vendor's capability to directly support clients
by examining the number of support staff, level of support, and location.
� Partner network: An assessment of a vendor's partner network used to implement and
support payments clients. Assessment criteria include size and maturity of network, regional
coverage, formal partner certification and training, and the vendor's capabilities (including
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 21
breadth of service offering, geographic coverage, and presence in the mobile wallet platform
sector).
� Large-scale deployment: An assessment of a platform's proven scalability by examining the
largest current deployments and the results of benchmark testing.
� Multi-entity deployment: An assessment of a vendor's capability to support multi-entity
and/or multi-regional operation within a single platform instance, by examining current
deployments that operate in this way.
� Deployment options: An assessment of a vendor’s ability to support a range of deployment
options, including, on-site, hosted, and software-as-a-service options, rated by the variety of
options on offer and in live deployments.
� Training resources: An assessment of a vendor's capability to provide training to clients by
examining the number of dedicated training staff, their location, the range of training media
and formats used, and the range of courses offered.
Figure 8: Vendors’ execution assessment by sub-criteria
Source: Ovum
The execution capabilities of the vendors surveyed here correlate with their overall size. Large-scale
vendors such as SAP, Accenture, and FIS have the highest levels of execution capability, largely due
to their extensive in-house resources, often via separate consulting and implementation arms, and
established partner networks. However, highlighting the potential for growth in the market, high-profile
startups in the wallet space such as Paydiant and Sequent have been able to develop their own, often
impressive partner networks in a short time span.
The scale of deployments is more mixed, with even larger players significantly ahead of smaller start-
ups. Smaller players such as Toro have quickly expanded to include tier-1 players in selected
markets, suggesting that even small-scale players have the capacity for large-scale deployments, but
the sustainability of this amid wider market growth remains to be seen.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 22
The deployment options available for potential wallet operators are more mixed, with a combination of
on-site and hosted delivery models available from most vendors. However, given the early stage of
development of many of these platforms, a number of these deployment options remain untested in
the field. Ovum notes that although nearly all vendors reported the capability to support multi-entity
deployments on a pan-regional basis, only one, SAP, had actually seen its platform used in this way.
Vendor analysis
Accenture
Background
Accenture is one of the world’s largest professional services consulting firms active in management
consulting, technology services, and outsourcing, and it was formed as an offshoot of accounting firm
Anderson Consulting in 2001. The publicly listed company reported total revenues of $30bn in the
2014 financial year, and it employed over 300,000 staff across 120 offices worldwide. With a strong
marketing presence globally, Accenture is perhaps the only household name active in the mobile
wallet platform space.
Alongside a range of activities within the financial services space, Accenture operates a dedicated
business group, Accenture Payment Services. This business unit is focused on business strategy,
technology, and operational efficiency in core payments, card payments, and digital payments, and it
includes a focus on transaction banking, compliance, risk, and operations.
Company structure
Accenture recently underwent a repositioning of its activities in the digital space. It formed its Digital
division in early 2014, which sits alongside its core Strategy, Technology, and Operations business
units. Accenture Digital was formed to integrate the firm’s digital marketing, mobility, and analytics
capabilities and offerings under one banner. Accenture Digital currently employs 28,000 staff, and the
company claims that this makes it the world’s largest provider of digital services.
Accenture’s Mobile Wallet Platform is part of the wider Accenture Mobility business unit, and it was
first launched in 2011. The capabilities of the platform have been built upon substantially since then,
both organically and through strategic investments and global alliances, particularly its alliance with
Apigee in 2014.
In 2014 Accenture also acquired part of Evopro group, which increased its industrial and embedded-
software capabilities. Other acquisitions include Acquity Group and Fjord in 2013.
Market impact assessment
Although initially launched in 2011, the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is only of average size,
judged by the number of deployments that are live and in development today. However, its clients are
primarily tier-1 firms, which is unsurprising considering the reputation and considerable clout that
Accenture maintains globally. This represents a considerable base for further market growth as major
players move to solidify their broader wallet platform strategies.
The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is a relatively small portion of Accenture’s services overall, so
the vendor scores lower than the market average for its overall wallet focus. However, given the sheer
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 23
scale of the organization, a small unit within Accenture remains substantially larger than many
competing platforms on the market today. Accenture’s renewed focus on the digital space and
formation of a digital unit highlights its broader focus on digital and mobile services, and suggests that
the Mobile Wallet platform will see continued support and development in the near term.
The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform remains predominantly aimed at tier-1 clients, and through
Accenture’s overall market stature it has rapidly developed a global presence. Although the number of
current live deployments is relatively low for a company of this scale, it is likely to increase in the near
term, and the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform will likely emerge as a major platform. It already has a
presence among major players in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, and as more providers launch
wallet services, it is likely to see further growth.
Figure 9: Accenture: market impact assessment
Source: Ovum
Technology assessment
The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is designed on a modular basis with a heavy focus on using
APIs to allow the easy integration of different functionalities between critical commerce, offers,
analytics, payment transaction systems, and so on, by employing the wallet as a service platform
using JSON, XML, WS SOAP, and RMI. Accenture’s alliance with Apigee, in particular, provides the
platform with strong application management capabilities. This heavy focus on API integration and
management means that the platform remains highly configurable by business users using open
source methodologies.
Critically, the wallet platform’s functions are grouped into independent and service-oriented modules.
This means that these functions can be easily plugged into the platform as required. This provides
scope for considerable configurability, while also allowing providers to adopt flexible deployment
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 24
strategies, which may initially focus on launching core functions before expanding capabilities through
additional value-added services.
The technology roadmap for the mobile wallet platform is strong, with further integration with
Accenture’s analytics capabilities planned via close integration with the Accenture Recommendation
Engine. This sits alongside detailed plans for further developments in the social media and targeted
offers space. Accenture is explicit in its design and marketing of the platform: it is intended to go
beyond purely payment transactions and serve as a broader mobile commerce platform.
The wallet has a high level of functionality and supports all of the standard wallet features, such as
NFC, QR codes, card vaulting, and couponing. From a business-user perspective, the wallet also
provides a potentially very high level of functionality through its integration with other Accenture
services and offerings, including the Accenture Customer Insight business intelligence solution.
Through its modular design, the wallet platform can also be integrated with other third-party and in-
house systems and services.
Although no multi-region deployments have yet gone live, the platform supports non-Latin character
sets, and it currently operates in a number of international markets. It also has multi-currency and
regulation configuration capabilities that can be enabled on a deployment-by-deployment basis.
The platform’s security and fraud detection and prevention capabilities are robust, and they include
integration with hardware security modules and the use of encryption protocols. However, the platform
scores slightly lower than competing offerings due to the fact that it is undergoing Payment Card
Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) certification, meaning that in existing deployments, card
data has been hosted by another party. Once certified, the platform will be in line with the majority of
the market in this area.
Figure 10: Accenture: technology assessment
Source: Ovum
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 25
Execution assessment
Unsurprisingly, given Accenture’s overall size and available resources, the company has a high level
of execution capabilities, and it offers a level of support that is among the highest in the market.
Although Accenture offers relatively little dedicated wallet support, it is able to draw upon its extensive
resources within the organization, and it operates second-line support centers in Italy and the
Philippines. Training for the platform is provided as part of the organization’s deployment and
transition services.
Accenture’s partner network is extensive, and it includes a variety of mobility partners including SAP,
Oracle, Cisco, Salesforce, Apple, and Samsung. In particular, its strategic partnerships with mobility-
specific software providers Crittercism and Kony and its alliance with Apigee have provided additional
capabilities in API and platform management.
Deployment options for the platform are also flexible: the platform is available both on-site and on a
hosted basis, with various configuration options available depending on local circumstances and
regulations. There are currently no live multi-entity deployments on the market covering multiple
regions and entities simultaneously, but the platform has the most extensive design and resource
capabilities to support these sorts of deployments.
Figure 11: Accenture: execution assessment
Source: Ovum
Recommendation: Accenture is a market leader
The capabilities of the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform are among the most extensive in the market
today, from both a technology and execution perspective, and its market impact is likely to expand
considerably in the near term. Despite being a relatively new platform, its capabilities and likely future
market impact highlight it as a market leader.
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 26
Critical to this is its focus on highly modular architecture, allowing for plug-and-play functionality
across a range of expanding capabilities. Its focus on API integration and management, via Apigee,
highlights a forward-thinking approach that will enable easy integration and configuration with wallet
providers’ broader infrastructure.
The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is particularly strong when used in conjunction with other
Accenture services and platforms, notably its recommendation engine, and as part of a broader suite
of Accenture technologies and services. All of these functionalities come at a price, however, and the
Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is not particularly suited to smaller-scale wallet providers where
requirements may be more limited and budgets may be smaller. The strong technology and execution
capabilities underpinning the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform mean it should definitely be
considered by tier-1 wallet providers capable of launching a broader wallet ecosystem.
Appendix 1
Vendor scores
Table 2: Market impact scores
Sub-criteria Mobile wallet market
presence
Platform market growth
Vendor scale Scale of wallet deployments
Wallet focus Overall market impact score
Accenture 4.4 6.0 8.0 5.6 4.4 5.2
FIS 4.5 5.3 7.2 5.9 4.1 5.4
Mahindra Comviva
3.6 4.7 6.2 3.8 4.8 4.6
Paydiant 5.2 5.6 5.2 6.4 7.6 6.0
SAP 6.9 7.1 7.6 8.9 4.3 6.9
Sequent 4.5 6.1 5.4 5.5 7.5 5.8
Toro 4.1 4.4 4.9 4.4 7.0 4.5
Source: Ovum
Table 3: Technology scores
Sub-criteria Platform architecture
Platform roadmap
Functionality Multi-region support
Platform configuration
and integration
Security and fraud
Overall technology assessment
score
Accenture 8.4 8.0 5.1 6.5 6.0 6.6 6.4
FIS 7.7 6.0 4.6 4.3 6.1 8.0 5.6
Mahindra Comviva
7.4 6.0 4.4 5.1 5.5 8.3 5.5
Paydiant 8.1 7.5 4.5 4.2 5.7 7.7 5.3
SAP 6.6 6.0 4.6 8.2 5.6 6.6 4.9
Sequent 8.1 7.0 5.0 4.3 6.0 7.1 6.0
Toro 8.2 6.5 4.1 4.7 6.7 6.7 5.9
Source: Ovum
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 27
Table 4: Execution scores
Sub-criteria Vendor support
capability
Partner network
Large-scale deployment
Multi-entity deployment
Deployment options
Training resources
Overall execution
assessment score
Accenture 8.3 7.6 5.5 5.1 7.6 9.5 6.7
FIS 7.1 7.8 5.5 5.6 7.1 8.2 6.6
Mahindra Comviva
5.8 6.0 6.0 4.5 6.4 7.8 5.6
Paydiant 4.8 8.4 6.0 3.8 6.1 7.2 5.9
SAP 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.3 6.4 8.3 8.3
Sequent 6.4 7.5 5.0 3.6 6.4 6.7 5.7
Toro 4.0 6.4 4.0 3.1 7.0 5.4 4.9
Source: Ovum
Appendix 2
Further reading
Loyalty and Location Based Payment Services, IT0003-000614 (July 2014)
Assessing the Long-Term impact of mPOS on the Payments Market, IT003-000604 (February 2014)
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting and Electronic Retail Payment Switch Platform, IT003-000602
(January 2014)
The Strategic Implications of Mobile on the Payments Market, IT003-000574 (September 2013)
On the Radar: Vocalink, IT003-000606 (February 2014)
On the Radar: Braintree, IT0003-000622 (September 2014)
Author
Gilles Ubaghs, Senior Analyst, Financial Services Technology
Ovum Consulting
We hope that this analysis will help you make informed and imaginative business decisions. If you
have further requirements, Ovum’s consulting team may be able to help you. For more information
about Ovum’s consulting capabilities, please contact us directly at [email protected].
Copyright notice and disclaimer
The contents of this product are protected by international copyright laws, database rights and other
intellectual property rights. The owner of these rights is Informa Telecoms and Media Limited, our
affiliates or other third party licensors. All product and company names and logos contained within or
appearing on this product are the trademarks, service marks or trading names of their respective
Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform
© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 28
owners, including Informa Telecoms and Media Limited. This product may not be copied, reproduced,
distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of Informa
Telecoms and Media Limited.
Whilst reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the information and content of this product
was correct as at the date of first publication, neither Informa Telecoms and Media Limited nor any
person engaged or employed by Informa Telecoms and Media Limited accepts any liability for any
errors, omissions or other inaccuracies. Readers should independently verify any facts and figures as
no liability can be accepted in this regard – readers assume full responsibility and risk accordingly for
their use of such information and content.
Any views and/or opinions expressed in this product by individual authors or contributors are their
personal views and/or opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of Informa
Telecoms and Media Limited.
CONTACT US
www.ovum.com
INTERNATIONAL OFFICES
Beijing
Dubai
Hong Kong
Hyderabad
Johannesburg
London
Melbourne
New York
San Francisco
Sao Paulo
Tokyo