Most payment gateway comparison articles compare headline rates and feature lists. That’s useful but incomplete. Two processors with identical 2.9% + $0.30 rates can produce dramatically different revenue outcomes because of differences in authorization rates, fraud detection quality, chargeback win rates, and support responsiveness. This framework evaluates gateways on what actually drives merchant revenue.
The Evaluation Dimensions That Matter
1. Authorization Rate Infrastructure (Weight: High)
Authorization rate is the single most important variable in payment performance. Every percentage point of authorization rate difference translates directly to revenue. Evaluate: Does the processor use direct acquiring or go through a sponsoring bank? Do they support network tokenization for stored cards? What are their average authorization rates in your specific vertical?
2. Total Cost — Not Just the Rate (Weight: High)
Collect all costs: transaction rate, monthly fees, gateway fees, chargeback fees, PCI compliance charges, and statement fees. Then calculate total annual cost at your expected volume. A processor with a slightly higher transaction rate but no monthly fees can be cheaper overall than a low-rate provider charging $50/month plus a PCI fee.
3. Fraud Detection Quality (Weight: High)
Poor fraud detection costs you in two ways: fraudulent orders you absorb, and legitimate orders declined by overly aggressive rules. Ask for fraud false-positive rates, average chargeback rates for merchants in your vertical, and specifics on the detection methodology, rules-based vs. ML-based.
4. Dispute Management (Weight: Medium)
When chargebacks arrive, what does the processor provide? Self-service portal only, or dedicated dispute support? What’s the average merchant win rate? Do they provide representment assistance?
5. WooCommerce Integration Quality (Weight: Medium)
Plugin update frequency, WooCommerce Subscriptions compatibility, digital wallet support (Apple Pay, Google Pay), and ease of installation. A gateway with a poorly maintained plugin is a reliability risk.
6. Support Model (Weight: Medium)
Email-only vs. phone/chat vs. dedicated account management. How quickly do they respond to account questions? Do they have a proactive risk escalation process?
7. Contract Terms (Weight: Low–Medium)
Early termination fees, minimum processing requirements, rate lock provisions. Month-to-month contracts with no minimums are preferred, they give you flexibility and create accountability for the processor to keep earning your business.
Evaluation Scorecard Template
| Dimension | Your Current Processor | Alternative 1 | Alternative 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Annual total cost | $___ | $___ | $___ |
| Authorization rate | ___% | ___% | ___% |
| Fraud detection model | |||
| Dispute win rate | ___% | ___% | ___% |
| WC integration quality | 1–5 | 1–5 | 1–5 |
| Support tier | |||
| Contract flexibility | 1–5 | 1–5 | 1–5 |
Where ConvesioPay Scores
On this framework, ConvesioPay scores highest on authorization rate infrastructure (Adyen direct acquiring), dispute management (dedicated human support), and WooCommerce integration (native plugin). It matches the market on pricing (2.9% + $0.30, no monthly fees) and has no long-term contracts. The primary trade-off is customization depth, merchants who need maximum API flexibility for bespoke checkout builds may find Stripe’s ecosystem broader.
Ready to get started? Learn more about ConvesioPay or view pricing.