You are on page 1of 49

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a

White-label Mobile Wallet Platform

Publication Date: 04 Dec 2014
Gilles Ubaghs


Product code: IT0003-000633

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform

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

© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Page 2

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform

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

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
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

© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Page 3

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform

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
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
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.

© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Page 4

while mobile banking can realistically only be offered by banks and. personal financial management (PFM) providers. and through the inclusion of payment capabilities in other applications through the use of APIs. Furthermore. to a lesser degree. while mobile banking will include all other aspects of consumer banking services on a mobile channel and plug into the broader banking infrastructure. merchants. Ovum believes that there is a clear distinction. telecoms firms. Critically. All rights reserved. mobile wallets are available from a variety of non-deposit-holding banking institutions such as online players. Nonetheless. these platforms will need to © 2014 Ovum. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.and back-end services Source: Ovum Mobile banking remains a distinct platform category. and third-party providers. but although there is a close relationship between the two. for now There is a significant overlap between mobile banking and mobile wallets. Page 5 . 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. a mobile wallet will typically plug into a financial institution’s payments engine platform.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 1: Mobile wallet platforms provide a focal point for front. regardless of who provides the wallet.

As a result. These providers typically offer a suite of their own in-house services tied together within a wallet software application layer. with a limited number of live deployments compared to their usual market offerings. and there is scope for smaller-scale start-ups to gain traction. if this environment ever emerges. product-led divisions. There is ample space for start-ups As it is such a new market. the last few years have seen the emergence of white-label mobile wallet platform providers. the white-label mobile wallet platform space is far from mature. as part of a consortium. these white-label wallet developers will become increasingly critical: they provide a more cost-effective approach than building a platform from scratch. Although some large-scale providers have been able to develop their own mobile wallets on a purely bespoke basis. Most banks today pay lip service to enabling an omnichannel view of their customers. be it on its own. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. As these emerging wallet platform providers develop their platforms and learn from their growing numbers of implementations. All rights reserved. no dominant market players. even major financial services technology vendors remain at an early stage of development. they are increasingly able to “templatize” their approaches. omnichannel service. more established financial service players. However. as yet. the dichotomy between mobile banking and mobile payments will likely fade amid a broader bank-led mobile initiative. or they provide a flexible interface in which wallet providers are able to tie together their own infrastructure and back-end processes. most providers will offer a combination of some level of back-end service and a flexible approach to integration with third-party services. a more unified mobile experience will be a critical component of their customer engagement strategies. potentially through a partner payment processor or a financial institution. however. the complexities of payments mean that no two issuers’ infrastructure is the same. 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. as such. but instead offer a range of software and associated services to wallet operators. For a provider seeking to launch its own wallet. as © 2014 Ovum. 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.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform connect to a payments engine. They do not provide the full wallet service direct to consumers. However as mobile engagement increases and consumers increasingly seek a unified. they are not consumer brands. Most banks do not have a unified mobile banking and payments strategy Most financial institutions continue to operate in siloed. There are. and they will set the broader parameters of any wallet ecosystem. many banking institutions do not yet have a unified mobile banking and mobile wallet strategy. Consolidation is inevitable. and it is characterized by both the large number of start-ups entering the space and the variety of services being offered by larger. Tellingly. and treat the two as wholly separate categories. This window of opportunity is rapidly narrowing. or as a widget on another wallet platform. and. White-label wallet platform vendors remain distinct from customer-facing services such as PayPal or Visa Checkout. they are purely B2B service providers. As such. Page 6 .

Notably. or a combination of these. whereby services are provided via cloud-based technologies. Although not all banks and financial institutions need to work with a third-party provider. whereby the platform is owned and managed by the wallet operator. both at operators and device manufacturers  merchant-led wallets. and depends wholly on the context. © 2014 Ovum. New technologies such as HCE and tokenization services are unlikely to settle best practice in wallet delivery models in the near term. FIS has a close relationship with startup Paydiant.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform major payment incumbents seek to increase their capabilities and starts-up continue to develop new and innovative ways of developing the mobile wallet space. 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. Unlike with many other app-based services. the sensitivities and. regulations surrounding payment transactions flows mean implementation options for wallet providers may be complex. and how to enter the wallet space. employing Paydiant APIs for its consumer-facing front end. The primary potential providers of a mobile wallet today include:  financial institutions including payment schemes and issuing banks  telecoms companies. All rights reserved. and either already offer these technologies or include them in their payments roadmaps. and specialists such as loyalty providers. A mobile wallet is not necessarily a financial-institution-led service. 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. the long-awaited announcement of Apple Pay in 2014 has impelled the market to act. Interestingly. to help develop their roadmap strategy in the longer term. and indeed most services in the market today have been launched by other types of players. and long-term strategic goals of the institution in question. However. including through fully managed payments-as-a-service delivery models. Unsurprisingly. all of which will have a direct impact on the revenue models and profitability of any wallet program. regardless of the scale of their programs. Cloud-based models will often provide advantages in terms of cost and flexibility. there is no agreed-upon best practice for banks and other wallet operators. the environment is further muddled by additional technologies and methods of implementation. it is critical that they gain an understanding of the market and their strategic options now. start-ups. when. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. but there may be security and regulatory barriers to their wider use. this decision-making includes whether they launch their own branded platform or partner with another provider. Page 7 . As yet. most wallet platforms are now reacting accordingly. capabilities. in many instances. For both platform vendors and wallet operators. 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. driving decision-making on if. For a bank or payment provider. typically on a closed-loop basis  third-party providers including major consumer technology providers such as Apple and Google. a hosted model. implementation can follow an on-premise model.

Coalition or consortium models consist of a number of players coming together to operate a wallet service. while also developing its own branded wallet and participating in Apple Pay. including merchants and telcos. This participation operating model is particularly suited to financial institutions. This is only an option for midsize to large players that have the resources to do so on an economically viable scale. In a “go it alone” operating model. However. 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. For several years. These coalitions can vary from simple bilateral partnerships to larger joint ventures and industry-wide coalitions involving a variety of players. which partnered with Google Wallet when it first launched. 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. 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. © 2014 Ovum. as wallet platform providers increasingly enable payment functionality in non-wallet apps. All rights reserved. or all varieties of providers. banks. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. join a coalition. which will enable their existing card accounts to be used in a variety of wallets. 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. and so on to provide an unintermediated interface to their clients. or a partnership that allows for the easier enablement and addition of payment account details or customer membership of another provider’s wallet. Page 8 . a provider will create and manage its own branded wallet service and act as the major consumer-facing brand on the service. or partake in another provider’s wallet. One example of active participation is Citigroup. This means that an underlying mobile wallet infrastructure can be deployed on a more widespread basis. such as telecoms or merchants. the biggest challenge facing mobile wallets has been the competitive race to avoid disintermediation. Participation in other wallets is likely to grow substantially in the near term. 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).Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform 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. and can include multiple players within a specific provider segment. to maintain their customer-facing relationships. allowing merchants. allowing for easier enrollment and direct connection to the cardholding account.

Although third parties could. All rights reserved. The concepts of horizontal and vertical mobile wallets were initially conceived by industry body Mobey Forum in a series of influential white papers. Wallet platforms. 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. by contrast. but will leave much of its wallet ecosystem open to other parties. In essence. the wallet provider has strict control over all functionality in the wallet and acts as the provider of all value-added services. the horizontal wallet operates like an app store.or closed-garden ecosystem. take part in a vertical wallet. and whether the platform will be a horizontal or vertical wallet.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform 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. through their control over the wallet security keys and credentials. The provider in a vertical wallet benefits from having total control over the ecosystem and can therefore push its own value-added services. this will be through a more formalized partnership process that would be seen in a more open-ecosystem horizontal wallet. in theory. In a vertical or closed 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. Page 9 . the next step is to decide on a wallet design. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. 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. © 2014 Ovum. They essentially refers to whether the wallet is an open. allowing for a broad range of services to be developed and customized by the end user and developers of value-added services. are then able to manage secure-data transactions for functions such as near-field communications (NFC).

on the universal integrated circuit card (UICC) SIM.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform 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. Payments on their own are not enough of a draw to drive mobile wallet usage. in light of the various stakeholders and competitors vying to gain a foothold in the market. 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. or on a removable storage device such as a micro SD. NFC for payment usage requires an SE component to be stored. maintaining the SE as a separate element meant that the payment credentials were held outside the handset’s operating system. particularly for proximity payments using NFC. services. creating a broad ecosystem of functionality. Indeed. All rights reserved. The mobile wallet market has been hindered by business model issues Although it has long been gestating. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 10 . greatly increasing security. 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. within the mobile device. This meant that NFC-based © 2014 Ovum. and compatibility increasingly looks like the surer path to success. These business model challenges have been exacerbated by unclear technology specifications adding to the confusion in the market. somehow. 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 any model. The SE could be stored either directly in the device.

is able to emulate a smart card through cloud-based software protocols. by contrast. the telecoms operators pushed for SIM-based SE. its use of tokenization has piqued the interest of many in the market and. Although Apple Pay’s long-term positioning will take several years to become fully clear. as renting out space on the SE to third parties would generate revenue for them. banks are now being forced to take a position and form their wallet roadmaps for the longer term. this led to much rapid development by potential key players eager to develop a dominant position in the mobile wallet space. with the development of both HCE and tokenization technologies. as the payment is processed as a CP transaction rather than a card not present (CNP) transaction. making flexibility key Alongside HCE and tokenization. and interest in the technology has soared. while other technologies such as Bluetooth low-energy (BLE) are expected to make a major impact in the future. arguably the world’s most successful wallet to date. have developed a strong foothold in the wallet space. Google announced that it was officially supporting HCE in the latest version of its Android operating system. Google Wallet was blocked from all NFC-capable handsets on the networks of Isis members while they developed their own wallet platform. and the need to achieve merchant acceptance means © 2014 Ovum. 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. This also means that Apple Pay allows for lower transaction processing rates than many other mobile proximity payment services. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. A standard SE model replicates a smart card through hardware installed on the device. All rights reserved. This meant that for the first time. 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. Further developments in wallet technologies are inevitable. Since the official support from Google. A single winner-takes-all outcome for competing wallet technologies looks increasingly unlikely. meaning that the wallet platform itself never gains access to secure payment credentials. QR codes are already a major authentication method for wallets at the point of sale (POS). such as QR codes and hands-free payments. However. the positioning of the SE in the device was a major point of contention. unsurprisingly. and are central to the Starbucks wallet. HCE has been fully endorsed by Visa and MasterCard. 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. In particular. because the owner of the SE held sway over the rest of the wallet model. other technologies. Inevitably. Page 11 . Notably. mobile wallet providers were capable of launching full NFC services without the need for telco involvement.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform transactions could be processed as a card present (CP) transaction. Although first launched as an NFC-based mobile wallet in 2011. HCE. as it essentially acted as the gatekeeper of NFC-based services on the wallet. HCE technology allows mobile wallet platforms to bypass the device-specific SE and store credentials in the cloud instead. HCE and tokenization are galvanizing the payments market In 2013. many wallet platforms already support tokenization or plan to support it in the near term. Apple Pay notably makes heavy use of tokenization technology. and in a move watched by payment providers globally. However.

the mobile wallet market is set to see a period of renewed growth and investment in the near term. 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. As the route to implementation for mobile wallets becomes easier. All rights reserved. The development of HCE technology and tokenization is expected to lead to a significant increase in mobile wallet development. Mobile wallet platforms extend far beyond NFC and are increasingly agnostic in terms of the technologies they employ.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform that it is more likely that a variety of technologies within the wallet space will continue to develop and evolve concurrently. 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. modern white-label wallet platforms place a strong emphasis on future-proofing and compatibility with emerging technology trends. As highlighted in Ovum’s 2014 ICT Enterprise Insights survey of IT decision-makers in the retail banking space. incorporating NFC and QR codes. The route to market has been notably simplified for non-telco providers. With broader payments diversification. The mobile/digital wallet space was ranked the top investment priority by 23% respondents. Page 12 . this trend is unlikely to change. mobile channel plays are the top-priority investment areas in payments products over the next 18 months (see Figure 4).6% of respondents). were second top overall (ranked top by 17. and the global mobile wallet market is beginning to see the first launches of HCE-enabled. and the growing ubiquity of smartphone technology in many regions. NFC-enabled handsets remains an issue in many markets. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. but the simplification of the upfront costs and complex partnerships previously required will drive rapid development of the mobile wallet space. and this will drive wallet growth With the hype of the launch of Apple Pay. Rather than a proprietary system wholly reliant on a single authentication or back-office technology. Apple Pay was announced after the ICT Enterprise Insights survey was conducted. Unsurprisingly. the most by a fairly strong margin. Despite the many high-profile failures in the mobile wallet and proximity payments space. Mobile proximity payments. the further development of HCE technology. As such. and numerous telco-led ventures. growth will increase and competition will intensify. and they remain an unknown quantity. as the use of NFC at the POS is perceived by many as the ultimate endpoint of mobile wallet interface development. from the likes of Google. in most markets banks and issuers have largely not yet made mobile wallet plays. NFC bank-led mobile wallets. 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. Softcard (formerly ISIS) in the US. The appetite for payments investment is big. © 2014 Ovum. banks and other potential providers will be less tied into heavy investment in any particular technology. The lack of contactless infrastructure and. with more expected to follow soon. but Ovum believes that the priority levels of mobile wallets and mobile proximity payments would probably have risen further. to a lesser degree.

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. Table 1: Vendors and products included in the Ovum Decision Matrix Vendor White-label mobile wallet platform Accenture Accenture Mobile Wallet FIS FIS Mobile Wallet Mahindra Comviva mobiquity Wallet © 2014 Ovum. Ovum believes it is representative of the market. Inclusion criteria Although the list of vendors here is not intended to include all possible providers. All rights reserved. representing significant approaches to the mobile wallet space. The seven vendors and their platforms are considered in this report are listed in Table 1. Ovum presents a selection of key players with major deployments either live or in development. At this early phase of market development. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. 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. Page 13 .Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform 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.

Methodology The assessment is based on the following methodology: © 2014 Ovum. 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. as having mid. Overall assessment Assessment scope In this Decision Matrix. or hold a significant position in its home geography with potential for future expansion. of the players on the market today. and the profiles shown here represent among the best. As a long-term potential. Ovum's assessment should only be considered within the context of a payment provider’s specific requirements. 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. and regional location on the other. the vendors shown here include some of the largest platforms by market presence. in an initial assessment by Ovum analysts. All rights reserved. including the degree of alignment between the platform’s functionality and underlying technology on the one hand.  The platform must be applicable to financial service players and/or existing payments providers. Ovum provides an assessment of each vendor’s execution capabilities in providing support and resources to aid implementation. project scope. alongside high-growth players with regional coverage and a particularly strong platform offering. A decision to purchase a particular platform should therefore be based on a broad array of factors.  The platform must provide Ovum with sufficient information to allow an accurate assessment. Page 14 . Alongside this. 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.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform 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 platform must currently be available in multiple geographies. organization size. but not all. including a complete response to Ovum's request for information (RFI) document and an in-depth briefing. and an institution's own particular business and payment functionality requirements. Enterprises seeking a mobile wallet platform are advised to consider their own strategic goals as the top priority in selecting a mobile wallet vendor. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Ovum rated vendors on a scale of 1–10 based on a consistent set of best-practice criteria or benchmarks defined by Ovum.  Market challenger: The platforms in this category have a good market positioning and the vendors are selling and marketing the product well. The vendor has established a commanding market position with a product that is widely accepted as best-of-breed. and market impact. Ovum also provides guidance for institutions looking to deploy mobile wallet platforms. and should be considered as part of the technology selection. Ovum ratings In this Decision Matrix. highlights the significant scope for further expansion in the space. The products offer competitive functionality and good price-performance proposition. FIS. FIS. consider. 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.  In addition to the RFI response. and the selection is intended to serve as an introduction to some of the key players now emerging. and SAP. for now Looking at the market from the perspective of financial service providers or existing banking and payment players. highlighted by the limited number of clients even of global technology providers. 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. The weightings are based on analysis of the typical importance of each criterion in the selection process for mobile wallet platforms. The immaturity of the wallet market. Although wallet services can be operated by © 2014 Ovum. including Accenture. For each response within the RFI that aligned to the respective sub-criteria.  Weightings are used in the analysis to calculate scores for both sub-criteria and primary criteria. We then aggregated the sub-criteria scores to provide a score for each primary criterion. 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  Based on Ovum's initial assessment of the retail mobile wallet market globally. This is largely due to their strong abilities to execute wallet deployments in a complex financial services environment. All rights reserved. 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. they should be explored as part of the technology selection. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. there are a handful of early front-runners. Page 15 . The wallet platforms presented here are not a complete compendium of all available platforms on the market. Acccenture. and SAP are market leaders. execution. Ovum invited vendors to provide solution briefings. and advises whether they should shortlist. or explore platforms from the vendors assessed in this report. Analysis for the three primary criteria was based on a scoring assessment exercise undertaken for a number of sub-criteria. As a tier-1 offering. and their international support capabilities.  Market follower: Platforms in this category are typically aimed at meeting the requirements of a particular kind of customer.

however. The future-proofing of the solutions for further developments is a key feature that all vendors are pursuing. Page 16 . NB: The chart shows a zoomed-in view of the vendors’ relative positioning Execution capabilities are critical to the market leadership of Accenture. 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. FIS. financial services institutions undoubtedly maintain the most complex infrastructure. Alongside this is the ease of integration with third-party systems. and SAP Overall. and competition remains fierce. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. for both payments and © 2014 Ovum. and as such may require greater levels of implementation support. Figure 5: The Ovum Decision Matrix for white-label mobile wallet platform vendors Source: Ovum. One of the key distinctions between platforms is the ability to connect to a vendor’s own systems and services. The immaturity of the market is highlighted by the fact that the overall market impact of all the vendors surveyed is fairly evenly spread. in some instances. the technology assessment score shows that these are all reliable and robust systems offering a high degree of flexibility. but there is nothing to stop the numerous challengers on the market from gaining a stronger presence in the near term. and this flexibility will be increasingly critical over time. with even small-scale startups. Newer platforms. that due to the immaturity of the market. place particular emphasis on the use of APIs to allow the integration and development of value-added services as part of a wallet program. Large vendors may have an initial edge with banks and payment providers. the majority of players are challengers. in particular. understandably so considering the relative immaturity of the broader market. predominantly based on modular SOA. such as Accenture’s. In particular. all of the platforms surveyed here are capable of providing a robust mobile wallet service with a full range of consumer-facing features. All rights reserved. the various platforms now available within the white-label mobile wallet platform market are positioned in close alignment.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform a variety of potential providers. However. As such. having a larger market impact than global tier-1 technology vendors. Figure 5 shows Ovum’s assessment of the vendors analyzed. with providers such as FIS able to offer a full end-to-end range of services that tie in directly with its wallet. Ovum notes.

even here. All rights reserved.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform value-added services. at least for the time being. Execution abilities are higher among larger organizations such as SAP. scale. © 2014 Ovum. smaller players have in numerous instances successfully deployed platforms for major tier-1 wallet providers. on occasion. this reflects an average of the vendors shown here and not of the overall market. However. Primary assessment criteria Evaluation categories As the competitive landscape may vary significantly across the evaluation categories in this Decision Matrix – technology. Even smaller players such as Toro have successfully launched major national platforms for tier-1 enterprises. execution. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. particularly when more deployments go live. and closer inspection of vendors by enterprises on a case-by-case basis will help to pinpoint a suitable vendor. The complexities of existing payments infrastructure vary widely by financial institution. Ovum believes it is more accurate to rate all active mobile wallet players as market leaders or challengers. which have significantly greater resources than smaller start-ups. Market impact assessment  Mobile wallet global market presence: An assessment of a vendor's mobile wallet installed base within the global payments sector. a clearer pattern of leaders and laggards will develop. Accenture.  Vendor scale: An assessment of a vendor's direct presence. Ovum notes that the scores given here reflect a vendor’s positioning against other vendors. it remains to be seen if smaller players find their resources stretched or if they can maintain their velocity and support market growth. and as the market matures. where averages are discussed. the financial services space. Hence. 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. and this makes the selection of a platform particularly challenging for enterprises. For the time being. and FIS. These capabilities are particularly crucial for existing payment providers and financial institutions because of legacy infrastructure complexities. Page 17 . In time. The following section presents a vendor comparison in each category and discusses how they vary across the sub-criteria. Consideration is also given to major client deployments that have achieved substantial growth. including. As market growth accelerates in the wallet space. including the level of staff that the vendor has dedicated to mobile wallet products. 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. This marks out these vendors as market leaders. and resources within various geographic regions. The market is so new that no vendor can be said to be a follower. so they should not be dismissed out of hand by organizations of any scale. The total number of deployments by region is included in this measure.

again largely due to its longevity in the market and proven track record. Page 18 . there is scope for newer platforms to expand rapidly. Overall. The scale of wallet deployments here again bears no direct relationship to the size of the vendor in question. the relative strength of even small players here. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. This again highlights the continued potential for smaller specialists to gain traction in the wallet space. Platform growth is positive for all players surveyed here. SAP has the highest ratings. The financial services sector is by nature a conservative industry.  Vendor’s mobile wallet focus: An assessment of a vendor's history and activity in the mobile wallet platform market. SAP has the most momentum. highlights the fact the wallet vendor space is still up for grabs in terms of gaining major market presence.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform  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. Once more. However. the relative importance of the mobile wallet sector to the vendor's revenue stream. and with further deployments their market presence will expand dramatically. which has undergone several high-profile platform launches in the US. particularly where they have established a strong presence on a regional basis or with any high-profile clients. All rights reserved. Many of the platforms reviewed here are extremely new. 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. © 2014 Ovum. and it is unsurprising that vendors with more deployments under their belt will continue to see the most growth. such as Toro and Sequent. followed by much smaller vendor Paydiant. notably those of Mahindra Comviva and Accenture. and the organizational structure supporting the vendor's activities in the mobile wallet sector. SAP had the highest mobile wallet presence due to its length of time in the market and deployments in numerous emerging markets. recent mobile wallet-related acquisitions.

and dedicated integration layers. and any capabilities for fraud detection and prevention. and compliance with standard transaction methods such as NFC and QR codes.  Security and fraud: An assessment of a vendor’s approach to security and fraud detection and prevention. SDKs. the degree to which configuration is performed by business users. incorporating both the security of the platform itself and compliance with international standards.  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. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. All rights reserved. Page 19 . and system features can be defined within a platform and how easily the platform can be integrated with other services. and granularity of a vendor's platform roadmap by assessing both the functional and technology developments planned for the next 24 months. They are all focused on using future-proofed. and typical product implementation options and timescales. Achieved by examining configuration toolsets. 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. product group capability. process workflows. innovation. and adoption of standards.  Platform roadmap: An assessment of the range. and how multi-language support is provided in the platform itself. and ease with which product. support for non-Latin characters in the mobile wallet interface.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Technology assessment  Platform architecture: An assessment of a vendor's platform architecture through examination of the platform design approach. operating system/database dependencies. training needs. integration approach.  Platform configuration and integration: An assessment of the flexibility. all of the white-label mobile wallet platforms surveyed provide a solid level of functionality.  Multi-region support: An assessment of the international capabilities of a vendor's mobile wallet platform. comprehensiveness. modeling functionality. use of SOA principles. including the number of languages currently supported in live deployments. The gap between these different © 2014 Ovum. Figure 7: Vendors’ technology assessment by sub-criteria Source: Ovum From a technology perspective.

as there are no clear front-runners in the market yet. © 2014 Ovum. hosted. their location. For potential wallet operators. and presence in the mobile wallet platform sector). and the range of courses offered. level of support.  Partner network: An assessment of a vendor's partner network used to implement and support payments clients. by examining current deployments that operate in this way. provide a more flexible payments-as-a-service model.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform technology platforms is minimal. Other platforms. Assessment criteria include size and maturity of network. for the time being. providing the mobile wallet as an infrastructure solution capable of enabling payments across functions and even apps.  Large-scale deployment: An assessment of a platform's proven scalability by examining the largest current deployments and the results of benchmark testing. is a close inspection of delivery models and wallet providers’ own plans for integration into their back-end systems. and the vendor's capabilities (including breadth of service offering.  Training resources: An assessment of a vendor's capability to provide training to clients by examining the number of dedicated training staff. due to their heavy integration directly with regional payment switches and infrastructure through the platform itself. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. regional coverage. this poses a particular challenge. However. Page 20 . particularly as so many of these platforms are relatively untested without further deployments. such as those of FIS and Paydiant. The technological gaps between these vendors will become more apparent when more platforms have been deployed and are live in the market. therefore. All rights reserved. such as those of Sequent and Toro. and software-as-a-service options. potential wallet operators will need to assess their preferred deployment options early on as part of any vendor selection process. on-site. and location. Some platforms. the range of training media and formats used. including. Execution assessment  Vendor support capability: An assessment of a vendor's capability to directly support clients by examining the number of support staff.  Deployment options: An assessment of a vendor’s ability to support a range of deployment options. geographic coverage. remain primarily focused on the US market. formal partner certification and training.  Multi-entity deployment: An assessment of a vendor's capability to support multi-entity and/or multi-regional operation within a single platform instance. Key to selecting a wallet platform. rated by the variety of options on offer and in live deployments.

but the sustainability of this amid wider market growth remains to be seen. The publicly listed company reported total revenues of $30bn in the 2014 financial year. © 2014 Ovum. and it employed over 300. had actually seen its platform used in this way. All rights reserved. with even larger players significantly ahead of smaller start-ups. given the early stage of development of many of these platforms. highlighting the potential for growth in the market. SAP. Accenture is perhaps the only household name active in the mobile wallet platform space. Page 21 . high-profile startups in the wallet space such as Paydiant and Sequent have been able to develop their own. technology services. with a combination of on-site and hosted delivery models available from most vendors. With a strong marketing presence globally. and it was formed as an offshoot of accounting firm Anderson Consulting in 2001.000 staff across 120 offices worldwide. a number of these deployment options remain untested in the field. However. The deployment options available for potential wallet operators are more mixed. Smaller players such as Toro have quickly expanded to include tier-1 players in selected markets.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 8: Vendors’ execution assessment by sub-criteria Source: Ovum The execution capabilities of the vendors surveyed here correlate with their overall size. only one. However. Accenture. suggesting that even small-scale players have the capacity for large-scale deployments. Vendor analysis Accenture Background Accenture is one of the world’s largest professional services consulting firms active in management consulting. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. The scale of deployments is more mixed. often via separate consulting and implementation arms. and established partner networks. and FIS have the highest levels of execution capability. Large-scale vendors such as SAP. largely due to their extensive in-house resources. Ovum notes that although nearly all vendors reported the capability to support multi-entity deployments on a pan-regional basis. and outsourcing. often impressive partner networks in a short time span.

All rights reserved. Although the number of current live deployments is relatively low for a company of this scale. In 2014 Accenture also acquired part of Evopro group. Company structure Accenture recently underwent a repositioning of its activities in the digital space. Page 22 . Accenture’s Mobile Wallet Platform is part of the wider Accenture Mobility business unit. and Asia. compliance. it is likely to see further growth. However. and analytics capabilities and offerings under one banner. and digital payments. This represents a considerable base for further market growth as major players move to solidify their broader wallet platform strategies. © 2014 Ovum. card payments. and the company claims that this makes it the world’s largest provider of digital services. Accenture Payment Services. the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is only of average size. Technology. Other acquisitions include Acquity Group and Fjord in 2013. This business unit is focused on business strategy. and the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform will likely emerge as a major platform. particularly its alliance with Apigee in 2014. and Operations business units. which is unsurprising considering the reputation and considerable clout that Accenture maintains globally. The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is a relatively small portion of Accenture’s services overall.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Alongside a range of activities within the financial services space.000 staff. and as more providers launch wallet services. and it includes a focus on transaction banking. judged by the number of deployments that are live and in development today. Market impact assessment Although initially launched in 2011. so the vendor scores lower than the market average for its overall wallet focus. Accenture operates a dedicated business group. Latin America. it is likely to increase in the near term. its clients are primarily tier-1 firms. Accenture’s renewed focus on the digital space and formation of a digital unit highlights its broader focus on digital and mobile services. It already has a presence among major players in Europe. which sits alongside its core Strategy. and it was first launched in 2011. However. Accenture Digital currently employs 28. risk. and suggests that the Mobile Wallet platform will see continued support and development in the near term. a small unit within Accenture remains substantially larger than many competing platforms on the market today. and operational efficiency in core payments. and through Accenture’s overall market stature it has rapidly developed a global presence. technology. which increased its industrial and embedded-software capabilities. It formed its Digital division in early 2014. mobility. Accenture Digital was formed to integrate the firm’s digital marketing. The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform remains predominantly aimed at tier-1 clients. both organically and through strategic investments and global alliances. given the sheer scale of the organization. The capabilities of the platform have been built upon substantially since then. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. and operations.

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. provides the platform with strong application management capabilities. the wallet also provides a potentially very high level of functionality through its integration with other Accenture services and offerings. with further integration with Accenture’s analytics capabilities planned via close integration with the Accenture Recommendation Engine. offers. Accenture’s alliance with Apigee.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform 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. such as NFC. The wallet has a high level of functionality and supports all of the standard wallet features. From a business-user perspective. analytics. 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. WS SOAP. while also allowing providers to adopt flexible deployment strategies. and couponing. This provides scope for considerable configurability. and so on. This means that these functions can be easily plugged into the platform as required. This sits alongside detailed plans for further developments in the social media and targeted offers space. All rights reserved. in particular. © 2014 Ovum. the wallet platform can also be integrated with other third-party and in-house systems and services. This heavy focus on API integration and management means that the platform remains highly configurable by business users using open source methodologies. the wallet platform’s functions are grouped into independent and service-oriented modules. XML. card vaulting. and RMI. payment transaction systems. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Through its modular design. QR codes. by employing the wallet as a service platform using JSON. including the Accenture Customer Insight business intelligence solution. Page 23 . Critically.

All rights reserved. In particular. Apple. 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. 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. and it operates second-line support centers in Italy and the Philippines. Accenture’s partner network is extensive. Training for the platform is provided as part of the organization’s deployment and transition services. Deployment options for the platform are also flexible: the platform is available both on-site and on a hosted basis. and Samsung. card data has been hosted by another party. the platform will be in line with the majority of the market in this area. the platform supports non-Latin character sets. Once certified. However. It also has multi-currency and regulation configuration capabilities that can be enabled on a deployment-by-deployment basis. Page 24 . given Accenture’s overall size and available resources. with various configuration options available depending on local circumstances and regulations. Although Accenture offers relatively little dedicated wallet support. and they include integration with hardware security modules and the use of encryption protocols. and it includes a variety of mobility partners including SAP. it is able to draw upon its extensive resources within the organization. meaning that in existing deployments. There are currently no live multi-entity deployments on the market covering multiple © 2014 Ovum. the company has a high level of execution capabilities. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. and it offers a level of support that is among the highest in the market. Salesforce. and it currently operates in a number of international markets.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Although no multi-region deployments have yet gone live. Figure 10: Accenture: technology assessment Source: Ovum Execution assessment Unsurprisingly. Oracle. The platform’s security and fraud detection and prevention capabilities are robust. Cisco.

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. via Apigee.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform regions and entities simultaneously. Its focus on API integration and management. 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. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. It is a Fortune 500 company that currently employs 39. allowing for plug-and-play functionality across a range of expanding capabilities.1bn in 2013. its capabilities and likely future market impact highlight it as a market leader. and its market impact is likely to expand considerably in the near term. notably its recommendation engine. however. highlights a forward-thinking approach that will enable easy integration and configuration with wallet providers’ broader infrastructure. from both a technology and execution perspective. 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. Critical to this is its focus on highly modular architecture.000 full-time staff. Page 25 . FIS Background US-based. The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is particularly strong when used in conjunction with other Accenture services and platforms. Despite being a relatively new platform. All of these functionalities come at a price. publicly listed FIS is one of the world's largest providers of banking and payment technology services. © 2014 Ovum. but the platform has the most extensive design and resource capabilities to support these sorts of deployments. with revenues in excess of $6. and it is active globally. and as part of a broader suite of Accenture technologies and services.

In 2013 it acquired mFoundry. including its acquisition by Alltell Information Services. However. Its experience with the Starbucks wallet via mFoundry in particular. The FIS Mobile Wallet platform is managed by the Financial Solutions Group (FSG) within FIS. and wealth management solutions. a significant player in the mobile banking and mobile payments space that worked on the launch of the Starbucks wallet (since taken in house by Starbucks). acting as a focal point for a number of other products and services. cash management. and this has helped it gain a solid foothold in the mobile wallet space in the US market. FIS also has a close partnership with Paydiant and uses that platform’s APIs for its front-end layer. In 2003. the company has changed dramatically over the years through major mergers and acquisitions. government payment services. FIS is a highly acquisitive organization. and the company claims that this makes it the first wallet to be tightly integrated with mobile banking. All rights reserved. FIS’ presence is confined to the North American market for the time being. treasury. retail core systems products. not just tier 1. It has deployed mobile wallet services for a range of financial service providers and retailers in all tiers. This makes FIS one of the few providers analyzed here capable of offering a full end-to-end mobile wallet and integrated payment service capability. insurance provider Fidelity National Financial acquired the financial services arm of Alltell and renamed it Fidelity Information Services (FIS). including management of US payment networks New York Currency Exchange (NYCE) and PayNet alongside a wide range of activities including card processing. FIS’ focus on financial services and wide range of activities in the payments space mean that its Mobile Wallet platform is an important product for the company. © 2014 Ovum.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Founded in 1968 as banking technology provider Systematics. core processing. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Page 26 . Cardless Cash was subsequently integrated into FIS Mobile Banking in 2014. the FIS Mobile Wallet platform was formally announced in 2012 and has since been expanded to include Cardless Cash ATM functionality. Market impact assessment FIS is one of the world’s largest financial technology providers. This unit is also responsible for mobile banking. and outsourced services. which is arguably the world’s most successful proximity payment wallet to date. is a strong calling card of its capabilities. In development since 2010. Company structure Overall. and it will need to expand its international presence rapidly to help ensure its long-term positioning. FIS offers over 350 products and services to the financial services sector. and they include both regional and national deployments in the US. and Clear2Pay. channel solutions. It has some sizable existing deployments.

As the wallet platform connects directly with payment switches. Transaction services are in turn integrated with various payment networks. Configuration and integration is achieved using a framework based on FIS Mobile. loyalty networks. enabling the use of multiple payment methods via the wallet and helping to improve security by not storing sensitive information directly on the device. and the platform is intended to serve as an ecosystem of services between merchants and financial services providers. Ovum notes that the front-end layer of the mobile wallet is built using APIs from Paydiant. Overall functionality is of a high level. The application services layer directly interfaces with existing systems of record to display account data and services. Communication between the handset applications and wallet server applications is done via a set of RESTful APIs. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. multi-region support may be harder to develop outside of the US. All rights reserved. and ATM switches to enable payment processing and cardless ATM withdrawals and other services. FIS will have a strong grounding for future expansion and multi-region support.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 12: FIS: market impact assessment Source: Ovum Technology assessment The FIS Mobile Wallet platform consists of a mobile app and a SDK. The use of cloud-based payment vaulting is key to the wallet’s design. with planned additions including further development of HCE capabilities in line with MasterCard’s and Visa’s specifications of the technology. but once the initial connections with regional switches are made. which interface with back-end application and transaction services. The roadmap for the FIS Mobile Wallet platform is detailed. encompassing all key wallet functions including integration with loyalty and analytics. and ISO-8583. Previous integrations with issuers have included a variety of formats including SOAP. Page 27 . whereby the mobile wallet server integration layer supports the development of an adaptor to the issuer host system. highlighting the strong degree of synergy that currently exists in the mobile wallet platform space. © 2014 Ovum. XML.

Figure 13: FIS: technology assessment Source: Ovum Execution assessment The level of vendor support for the FIS Mobile Wallet platform is very high. and they comply fully with PCI-DSS. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. They also use mobile banking technologies. and client portals. through the use of cloud and tokenization technologies. The wallet platform can be deployed both on-site and on a hosted basis. With a significant presence globally. including both upper. This is alongside second-line support centers based in San Francisco and Milwaukee in the US.and lower-level security approaches. Training is undertaken by a team of 10 full-time employees. but given FIS’ global presence. The FIS Mobile Wallet platform is currently confined to the US market. © 2014 Ovum. given the platform’s reliance on cloud-vaulting of payment credentials. and FIS offers its mobile clients an eLearning training site. webinars. All rights reserved. the vendor’s partner network is also strong: the company has relationships with numerous tier-1 system integrators and other technology and industry partners. further expansion is inevitable. Most existing deployments are hosted. Multi-entity and multi-country deployments are possible on the wallet platform. training courses.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform The security and fraud detection and prevention capabilities of the FIS Mobile Wallet platform are particularly robust. and the direct connection to payment switches via the wallet means it can serve as an enabling ecosystem platform across a range of entities. which is unsurprising given the company’s high level of available resources. Page 28 .

but it is currently deployed only in the US. Parent company Tech Mahindra is one of the largest IT services providers in India. including telecoms. and business process outsourcing (BPO) services to a range of industries. and specializes in providing mobility solutions to telcos. Mahindra Comviva Background Mahindra Comviva is a subsidiary of Indian IT services provider Tech Mahindra. © 2014 Ovum. FIS’ broader focus on financial services and wealth of experience in complex banking and payments infrastructure mean it is particularly well suited to banking and payment providers. As such. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. coming from an experienced provider. it should be strongly considered as part of any white-label mobile wallet sourcing exercise. and its execution capabilities are of an extremely high level. By providing integration with back-end services and direct connections to payment processing infrastructure. the FIS Mobile Wallet provides a flexible means for potential providers to launch wallet services relatively easily. with much of the complexity and additional functionality handled directly by FIS on a hosted basis.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 14: FIS: execution assessment Source: Ovum Recommendation: FIS is a market leader The FIS Mobile Wallet platform provides a full-service end-to-end payment capability that is well suited to a wide range of potential client institutions in both the financial services and retail spaces. with 92. Page 29 . FIS’ global presence means it has ample capabilities to expand its wallet presence relatively quickly. and once it does so it will be a potentially major player for wallet providers globally. and retailers. Tech Mahindra offers a wide range of IT. will be particularly critical for many financial institutions. financial service providers. networking. Ovum believes that this hosting capability. All rights reserved. and it reported revenues of $3.729 employees in 51 markets.1bn in 2013. The FIS Mobile Wallet is available for all markets.

Page 30 . in both its Wallet and Money forms. retail. its mobile transaction platform. It currently employs 1. banking. remains its flagship product. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. its prepaid recharge solution. Mahindra Comviva has primarily grown organically rather than via acquisitions. so overall support for its wider growth will remain high. a mobile money solution for emerging markets. aerospace. particularly in regions with high mobile payment potential including Asia-Pacific. In addition to its Indian headquarters in Gurgaon. All rights reserved. which includes the mobiquityWallet for mature payment markets and mobiquityMoney. and it reported revenues of $97m in the 2013 fiscal year. Key products in Mahindra Comviva’s portfolio include: mobiquity. it operates 16 regional offices globally. however. but this is likely to change rapidly in the near term as further deployments occur. and mobiquity.350 staff. and pharmaceuticals. However. it builds on the more established presence of the broader mobiquityplatform and Mahindra Comviva’s presence in the mobile financial services space. but given the scale of Tech Mahindra. its impact is fairly limited and its deployments are relatively small. and PreTUPS. so it is a new entrant in the mobile wallet space.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform manufacturing. retain a focus on mobile financial services. future acquisitions are a strong possibility. and this is likely to have a strong impact on the mobiquityWallet and help it to increase its market impact in the near term. travel. The company has a strong focus on global expansion and is actively pursuing prospects in mature markets with its mobile wallet and mobile POS offering. defense. engineering. governance. Mahindra already has a proven track record in the mobile financial services space. To date. Mahindra Comviva specializes in mobile financial solutions. while mobiquityMoney is aimed at emerging regions. and it is aimed primarily at mature markets. energy. a mobile POS (mPOS) platform. The company does. The mobiquityWallet is one aspect of the broader suite of products available from Mahindra Comviva. media. © 2014 Ovum. payPLUS. Company structure Mahindra Comviva manages its mobiquity Wallet directly. Founded in 1999. logistics. healthcare. In light of its very recent entry. Market impact assessment The mobiquityWallet was launched in 1Q2014.

including support for hardware security modules (HSM) and tokenization. which allows for the rapid creation of customized service flows by using predefined service actions. BLE. with additional support for new features and services including support for wearables such as Google Glass and BLE technologies. Unlike many of its competitors. with support for all the core transaction methods such as NFC – SE and HCE. It offers multi-region support.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 15: Mahindra Comviva: market impact assessment Source: Ovum Technology assessment Mahindra Comviva’s mobiquity Wallet is architected with a modular open services design. supports double-byte-encoded character sets and multi-tenancy. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. and it can share deployed infrastructure across multiple financial service providers. This is largely based on a service creation framework. biometrics. with a focus on providing the ability to interface with third-party systems and back-office infrastructure via an integration abstraction layer. It can be used for non-payment use cases such as loyalty and identity management. © 2014 Ovum. Page 31 . The roadmap for the mobiquityWallet is robust. the platform is currently HCE-ready and has a strong focus on security. to allow for greater flexibility and easy integration of the platform. The mobiquityWallet has a very high level of functionality. either in app or as a wraparound for third-party services. and QR codes. All rights reserved. This means that the platform is highly scalable and can be rapidly adapted to meet the individual requirements of wallet operators.

to first-level support in English. French. Mahindra Comviva is a large player in the mobile financial services space in its own right. as most deployments are undertaken in-house. Spanish. on either an on-site build-out basis or a hosted basis. and unsurprisingly has sufficiently good resources to give it a strong execution capability. Mahindra Comviva’s direct partnership network is relatively limited compared to some of its larger competitors. However. Deployments of the wallet have so far been limited to a single region.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 16: Mahindra Comviva: technology assessment Source: Ovum Execution assessment Although a subsidiary of a much larger organization. including “train the trainer” programs. Page 32 . but the company has the resources in place to extend this capability quickly. with 65 deployments undertaken to date. Although the mobiquityWallet itself is a new platform with relatively few deployments. Mahindra Comviva currently has a 15-person training team for both technical and functional personnel. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. and Portuguese. it does have partnerships with key players such as MasterCard and other major payment bodies. which provides training for technical and functional staff both on client premises and in the classroom. providing third. All rights reserved. The company also has an India-based support center operated by 50 staff. the company has nearly 15 years’ experience in the broader mobile financial services space. © 2014 Ovum.

it has been largely focused on emerging payment markets. Since its launch. its mobile wallet platform is in fact one of the more established products in the market. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. With further live deployments. All rights reserved. General Catalyst Partners. Market impact assessment Despite Paydiant being a relatively small company of about 75 employees. but this should not detract from its longer-term potential. In many instances. Historically. and it should therefore be seriously considered by potential wallet operators. Company structure As a start-up venture. Paydiant Background Paydiant is a Massachusetts-based start-up that was launched in 2010 and focuses exclusively on its mobile wallet platform. Mahindra Comviva has strong potential to emerge as a market leader. particularly for prepaid reload and mobile money. raising approximately $42m. Major investors include North Bridge Venture Partners.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 17: Mahindra Comviva: execution assessment Source: Ovum Recommendation: Mahindra Comviva is a market challenger The Mahindra Comviva mobiquityWallet is a strong platform with a high level of flexibility that would be well suited for most markets. the company has gone through three rounds of Series A to C venture capital funding. these product platforms are operating across complex infrastructures with large numbers of users. and it has developed a high number of users across many of its other products. The company is currently active exclusively in the US market. having quickly gained a strong position © 2014 Ovum. This suggests that Mahindra’s experience will prove beneficial in helping it develop its service-oriented platform further in mature payment markets. Paydiant is exclusively focused on its core wallet platform. Page 33 . The company’s activity in the mobile wallet space in mature markets is fairly limited. and Stage 1 Ventures.

With its mobile wallet platform being its sole product. a secure keystore manager. and loyalty functions with existing mobile applications. Alongside these are two additional back-end components – payment processor connectors and loyalty platform connectors – both of which provide many preconfigured © 2014 Ovum. an entity manager. a payment account manager. This means that clients are able to integrate wallet functionality such as payment. and the MCX wallet. All rights reserved. Discover. and a customer portal – and six back-end components including a security manager. Diebold. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. allowing wallet operators to have a high degree of control over the platform. a mobile gateway. limiting its overall global presence. with major branded retailer programs reaching several million consumers. which was recently renamed CurrentC. Most of the platform’s functionality is exposed through a set of APIs and SDKs.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform through product launches with major retailers and institutions. Platform growth is also strong. including FIS (where it provides the front end API for FIS’ own wallet service). However. Figure 18: Paydiant: market impact assessment Source: Ovum Technology assessment Paydiant’s mobile wallet is a cloud-based white-label platform built using modular architecture. Page 34 . Paydiant’s platform is also resold through major partners. Pulse. The company attributes much of its growth to the fact that it was among the first purely white-label mobile wallet providers on the market that was not focused on disintermediating other players. the company’s wallet focus is very high compared to some of its larger competitors. and payment processor components. Barclaycard. although its influence is widespread. This architecture is built around three front-end components – a POS gateway. offer management. This includes partnerships with Subway. Its deployments are broad in scale. and Vantiv. a mobile checkout manager. Capital One. Paydiant is currently active exclusively in the US market. in some instances. with major launches from CurrentC and others due in 2015.

All rights reserved. managers. by defining a variety of different policies to suit their needs without the need to custom-code the platform. as the platform is exclusive to the US market. The company also undertakes robust security testing of the platform both internally and externally through third-party security providers. existing fraud detection and “Know Your Customer” (KYC) mechanisms are used.g. Page 35 . This training is divided into three core components: end user. Product configuration can be done by business users. and private-label card platforms. Figure 19: Paydiant: technology assessment Source: Ovum Execution assessment As Paydiant is a relatively small company. FIS and Vantiv). Paydiant’s partner network consists of major key players within the US payments space (e. installation. and acceptance-point staff. Multi-region support is untested with Paydiant. the platform’s connector-based modular design for integration with third-party platforms means that it should be relatively easy to implement for multi-region capabilities. connecting to non-certified service providers will require the creation of connectors between these third-party providers and Paydiant.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform interfaces or “connectors” to enable direct connections with back-end systems such as payment processors. However. and developer. which. and preparation and delivery training for staff. The platform roadmap for Paydiant’s mobile wallet is strong. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. gift card platforms. and training services alongside training documentation. acceptance location. This can be achieved via published APIs and SDKS. However. with plans to shift support for NFC/HCE and BLE from pilot phase into full production. in many instances. As Paydiant’s platform leverages issuers’ existing payment processing services. operate as resellers able to provide additional support and © 2014 Ovum. its direct vendor support capability is limited compared to many of its larger competitors. the company provides a mixture of on-site implementation. Although connections to payment processors and loyalty providers that are already integrated with Paydiant are relatively easy.

Paydiant is a relevant case study of mobile wallet development that can provide useful lessons to other regions. SAP Background Germany-based SAP is one of the world’s largest providers of enterprise software. human capital management (HCM) and other enterprise-targeted solutions across all vertical market segments. the company remains exclusively US-focused. it has very strong potential to emerge as a global market leader. Page 36 . Paydiant is one of the most widely deployed white-label mobile wallet platforms available on the US market today. and it is experienced at introducing wallet-like capabilities to existing mobile applications. The © 2014 Ovum. across both the banking and retail sectors. and its focus on platform-as-a-service delivery models means that it is likely to remain a US-centric platform in the near term and will therefore not be relevant for the global market for some time yet. alongside customer relationship management (CRM). Paydiant’s platform is only delivered on a platform-as-a-service basis. and should be strongly considered by enterprises where possible.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform implementation capabilities. If Paydiant can successfully scale up its market positioning to a global level. All rights reserved. which may limit its suitability for some potential wallet operators that may be sensitive about storing their data in a cloud-based infrastructure. Despite this. Its focus on cloud-based modular architecture and use of connectors to connect to third-party infrastructure means that it is capable of meeting most wallet needs. Paydiant is a strong market challenger. However. It has a heavy focus on enterprise resource planning (ERP) and business warehouse systems. supplier relationship management (SRM). Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Figure 20: Paydiant: execution assessment Source: Ovum Recommendation: Paydiant is a market challenger Despite being a relatively small start-up.

8bn in 2013.835 staff globally with a direct presence in 130 countries. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. This offering was first launched in 2001 as part of the Sybase 365 Mobiliser platform. It has deployments in all major geographic regions and several very large deployments in emerging payment markets such as Pakistan and Indonesia. and it employs 68. Given SAP’s broader portfolio. even as a small unit. Company structure The SAP Mobile Consumer Payments solution is managed as part of the company’s broader financial services and omnichannel banking portfolio. and SAP Shopper Experience. Figure 21: SAP: market impact assessment Source: Ovum © 2014 Ovum. an in-memory computing platform that is deployable as an on-premise appliance or via the cloud. All rights reserved.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform publicly listed company reported turnover of €16.8bn. consumer edition. and the acquisition of Sybase in 2010 for $5. telecoms operators. the mobile wallet platform is a relatively small product for the company. and has since evolved to include full wallet capabilities via the SAP Mobile Platform. remains largely focused on tier-1 and tier-2 players. It currently has over 40 deployments globally. but as with many of the larger wallet platform providers on the market. SAP Mobile Inclusive Banking. Page 37 . Recent major developments at SAP include the development of SAP HANA. SAP Mobile Platform commands considerable resources. which greatly expanded SAP’s capabilities in the mobile technology space in particular. SAP Mobile TopUp. Other solutions in this portfolio include SAP Mobile and Online Banking. however. consumer edition is the most widely deployed wallet platform of any of the products reviewed in this report. and retailers. mostly in the banking space but also with third-party payment providers. SAP’s wallet client base. SAP Customer Loyalty. SAP Mobile Remittance. Market impact assessment SAP Mobile Platform.

are not included as standard in the platform. consumer edition architecture is based on Model View Controller design patterns. The SAP Mobile Platform. SAP’s wallet platform is the only one surveyed by Ovum to have a live instance of a multi-country deployment. in many instances. much like the competing platforms on the market.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Technology assessment SAP’s mobile wallet solution is designed using SOAP and SOA principles. and Chinese. The configuration and integration capabilities of SAP’s mobile wallet platform are capable of meeting most wallet operators’ needs. nearly all of SAP’s mobile wallet functions have already been deployed in live wallet programs. and third-level support in many languages. The platform has a high level of multi-country support. however. Figure 22: SAP: technology assessment Source: Ovum Execution assessment The execution capabilities of SAP’s mobile wallet platform are of an extremely high level compared to the broader market. and it supports both multi-currency and multi-tenant configurations. and can be added as extra modules. The platform is 100% Java-based. All rights reserved. second-. consumer edition. with facades providing standard interfaces with the business services for client-side applications. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Some features. Functionality on the platform is of a high standard. and it has been built using SAP Mobile Platform. without the need for IT or vendor support. with a large resource pool of dedicated wallet staff focused on implementations alongside the broader SAP resource base. English. with business users. Page 38 . © 2014 Ovum. SAP’s partner network includes some of the largest IT services providers in the world. NFC. including German. allowing for a modular approach in terms of increasing device compatibility and front-end channels as well as back-end processing functionality. such as loyalty. This includes support-center staff globally. and includes the standard technologies such as QR codes. capable of enacting changes directly. and BLE. This allows for the separation of the presentation and business logic layer. who can provide first-. Unlike many competing wallets.

IBM. particularly in the financial services space. Nonetheless. positions it well for existing financial service providers. With large-scale deployments in regions with complex payments infrastructure. and Wipro. This includes regular scheduled training globally and the presence of certified trainers during on-site implementation. particularly for smaller organizations. SAP is primarily suited to larger tier-1 and tier-2 wallet operators. © 2014 Ovum. 95% of implementations today are done on-site. so it is a clear market leader. Page 39 . but this may lack the ease of implementation seen with broader platform-as-a-service delivery models. including a team dedicated solely to the mobile wallet platform. All rights reserved. including for large financial institutions. The platform is capable of being deployed on a hosted basis. Figure 23: SAP: execution assessment Source: Ovum Recommendation: SAP is a market leader SAP’s mobile wallet platform is the most tried and tested product available in the white-label mobile wallet space. where on-site deployments may be more beneficial. The wallet platform can be deployed on both on-site or on a hosted basis. SAP operates a global network of trainers across the organization. and development training. SAP remains a major mobile wallet platform provider and should be considered by tier-1 and tier-2 institutions. and it should be strongly considered as part of any white-label mobile wallet vendor sourcing exercise. SAP’s track record of successful large-scale deployments globally. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. configuration. In terms of training resources.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform including Accenture. This training includes operating the platform. all of which are capable of offering support on any wallet implementation globally.

and Asia. and Rogers Telecoms. including for some high-profile players in the banking and telecoms sectors including CIBC. Sberbank. © 2014 Ovum. its capabilities in and focus on enabling payments in other applications. while its Trust Authority is focused on SE and application management services for managing security credentials on devices. In particular. North America. Jado. and SBT Venture Capital (which is backed by Sberbank). Digital Issuance. and transport and access control providers. and Trust Authority services. these are complementary. Sprint. and its key investors include SK Telecom. Sequent acquired the software operation of US-based Vivotech. including banks. Its Digital Issuance service allows for HCE cloud-based or SE-based provisioning of payment credentials to mobile devices. The platform shows positive growth. a specialist provider of contactless and NFC readers and software. Opus Capital. The company has undergone two funding rounds. and Sequent’s high-profile client base is likely to lead to further growth. Sequent has made considerable progress globally in terms of the number and regional scope of its deployments. Company structure As a start-up player. Page 40 . telecoms providers. and although it does offer additional services alongside its Open Wallet Platform. as providers move away from a one-size-fits-all wallet approach. gives it a forward-thinking approach that is likely to drive significant interest and growth in the near term. retailers. As a start-up mobile payments specialist. This provided Sequent with enhanced trusted service manager (TSM) capabilities. Sequent is a California-based start-up focused on its Open Wallet Platform. after it went into administration. It has launched its wallet platform in Europe. Sequent’s products are aimed at a variety of markets. with several deployments currently in development.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Sequent Background Founded in 2010. Sequent handles all of its products directly. Market impact assessment Although it is not a large company compared to some of its competitors in the wallet space. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. with several large-scale national deployments. In 2013. All rights reserved. Sequent remains focused on the mobile wallet space. including mobile banking.

including one for multi-card single tap transactions.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 24: Sequent: market impact assessment Source: Ovum Technology assessment Unlike most other white-label mobile wallet platforms on the market today. and a wallet platform abstraction layer. Core Card Services (CCS). while use of the SE via the SE chip or HCE gives it a high level of security. Apps can therefore share access to secure payment credentials via the SE or using HCE tokens. and one for the ability to add wallet functionality to other applications securely. securing payment credentials while also allowing for the inclusion of additional value-added services. means that the platform is flexible for future developments in mobile payments. Sequent operates with a purely platform-as-a-service delivery model. it provides a high degree of future-proofing and functionality. © 2014 Ovum. The use of on-device middleware. the capabilities of the platform will grow in the near term. mobile network operator (MNO) wallets. With such a focus on APIs and cloud enablement. the platform’s level of functionality is understandably high. and merchant wallets. Sequent holds several key patents. enabling a high degree of innovation in the payment space. aggregator wallets. Sequent has a strong roadmap for its Open Wallet Platform. which is aimed at improving the customer experience at the POS. This is achieved through the use of APIs and on-device middleware. abstracting payments from the app itself. but also on adding wallet functions to existing mobile applications. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. with all core wallet functions supported. This is focused not only on providing wallet functionalities in a dedicated wallet application on a mobile device. CCS subsequently abstracts all communication to back-end systems. Given the vendor’s focus on being an open platform for developers and with its growing numbers of partnerships. Page 41 . mobile banking wallets. All rights reserved. The use of cloud-based wallet management servers means that Sequent’s Open Wallet Platform provides a flexible mechanism to deploy wallet functionality as a service to a host of potential app providers.

it has already demonstrated its ability with successful product launches in major markets. including with US-based CPI Card Group and Swiss group Trub. and its partner networks remain understandably less developed for an organization that has been on the market for less than five years. That said. such as mobile banking services. All rights reserved. Sequent offers global support. Page 42 . the company has formed key partnerships in recent years. This includes the ability to incorporate this functionality in other apps. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. particularly within the financial services space. the UK. Canada. where many may not be ready for this approach. it offers less support than some of its larger competitors. and Ovum believes that much of the financial services market will soon catch up. which enables the issuance of secure credentials to SE. These partnerships have helped Sequent to expand its execution capabilities. and although it is not a global tier-1-sized organization. However. However.or HCE-based NFC services.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 25: Sequent: technology assessment Source: Ovum Execution assessment With 65 staff and a direct office presence in the US. and Spain. its model presents a unique opportunity to deploy mobile wallet functionality efficiently. Sequent’s Open Wallet Platform may be less suitable for organizations that require on-site deployment due to regulatory or data concerns. Sequent has already successfully deployed large-scale wallets for major providers. With a purely platform-as-a-service delivery model. © 2014 Ovum. The partnership with CPI in particular is likely to have a wide reach through the CPIMobile platform.

Spain. All rights reserved. avoiding disintermediation while helping to spread the use of their cards on app-based channels. Sequent represents the next wave of development in the mobile wallet space. banks. which enables wallet functionality via apps and widgets. It is primarily focused on the European and Asia-Pacific regions. so its platform should be seriously considered by any potential wallet operator globally. Sequent can provide banks. and Akami marketing platforms. the Akami mobile wallet platform is positioned as an infrastructure solution for telcos. Although not a tier-1 technology vendor. Sequent’s platform-as-a-service model may cause challenges for some banks that may prefer on-site deployment. with an opportunity to place themselves at the center of a broader mobile payment ecosystem. Toro Background Founded in 2007 in Taiwan.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Figure 26: Sequent: execution assessment Source: Ovum Recommendation: Sequent is a market challenger Sequent’s Open Wallet Platform represents a more nuanced approach to the mobile wallet market – a more progressive approach than the “one wallet to rule them all” model that has been the stated aim of many potential wallet providers in the past. Sequent is arguably one of the most advanced and successful start-ups in the mobile wallet space. Page 43 . in particular. Toro is purely focused on its mobile wallet infrastructure platform. and retailers. but grown organically. The company has not made any acquisitions. and associated services include the Akami app store. and Taiwan. © 2014 Ovum. a mobile wallet. creating an open ecosystem rather than a walled garden. and it maintains a forward-looking strategy that is likely to have a significant impact in the near term. The company’s core product is Akami Wallet. however it also provides a high level of flexibility. Akami business intelligence. Unlike many other white-label mobile wallet platforms on the market today. with a direct presence in France. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

These include a combination of wallet trials and full live deployments. and the open-ecosystem design of its wallet means that it is intended to work across potential provider types. which was joined by 65% of retail banks. The brand’s growth has been steady. Page 44 . Figure 27: Toro: market impact assessment Source: Ovum Technology assessment Toro’s Akami wallet platform is designed to operate as wallet infrastructure rather than a dedicated app.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Company structure Toro is focused exclusively on its mobile wallet platform Akami. Denmark. and Sweden set to follow in 2015 and 2016. small-scale player that has developed into an established player in the white-label mobile wallet space. Toro is poised for further expansion. With greater visibility. Market impact assessment Toro is a relatively niche. as it is solely focused on its core Akami wallet platform and associated services. albeit with large tier-1 players in line with their broader wallet rollout strategies. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. Valyou is expected to increase its functionality and active participants significantly in the near term. As a cross-provider open wallet. In late 2014 Toro launched the Valyou wallet in Norway. with a particular emphasis on telecoms providers and the European market. and they include projects with T-Mobile Poland and Credit Mutuel in France. All rights reserved. It can then © 2014 Ovum. however. Most deployments to date have been moderately sized. but being a smaller company that is predominantly active in the European and Asian markets. with Finland. and it is therefore architected around virtual machine and transaction terminal layers. with some of its deployments having been live for several years. it has not been able to benefit from its broader brand reputation or the high levels of growth experienced by the North American market. Toro has a very high level of wallet focus. Toro has also deployed systems directly for banks.

is able to solve mobile fragmentation issues. All rights reserved. Toro’s security and fraud detection and prevention functionality is robust. Figure 28: Toro: technology assessment Source: Ovum Execution assessment As a small player compared to several of its competitors. SDKs. with third-party widgets managed by Toro’s wallet manager server. This means that the wallet. but primarily handled by its TSM providers rather than directly in the platform. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. To date. Page 45 . Integration and configuration capabilities are also of a high level. This creates the mechanism to enable a broader ecosystem and provide a full mobile payment ecosystem. but much of it is achievable primarily through third-party widgets rather than directly via the platform itself. third parties including merchants can then access secure applications on the SE via the wallet itself. the company already has working relationships and live deployments with major providers. Despite this. including on the fly. greatly enhancing scalability while providing added flexibility for providers to customize the user experience. Toro has a lower level of vendor support capabilities than some others in the market. the © 2014 Ovum. through a combination of a separate integration layer within Akami and the use of APIs. MasterCard and Visa (EMV) certified. The overall functionality of the Akami platform is of a high standard. Toro has also formed partnerships with major providers for TSM services including Gemalto and Morpho. suggesting that it is able to focus its resources to meet large players’ requirements.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform connect to a widget lifecycle management platform and a communication interface via the cloud. all deployments have been single-region domestic deployments. Although the Akami wallet is designed to serve as wallet infrastructure rather than an app. Through widgets in Akami. operating a virtual machine. and so on. including Telenor Group and DNB Bank in Norway and T-Mobile in Poland. Akami is fully Europay. and it provides dedicated training including certified developer and certified trainer programs.

Despite this. It has the potential for further expansion in the near term and.0 8. Akami could provide a considerable first-mover advantage.4 5. All rights reserved. as operators will need a sizable market presence to garner the attention of third-party widget developers to help extend wallet functionality. Toro’s Akami platform offers a unique proposition that is worth serious consideration in any wallet platform selection process. Page 46 . Such a model is particularly advantageous in markets where the wallet ecosystem remains relatively underdeveloped. Toro is a tried-and-tested product in numerous markets.6 4. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. as such.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform platform provides a range of deployment options including on-site and hosted by Toro or third parties. is a rising market challenger.4 6. With one full-time trainer. its training resources are fairly limited. the platform may struggle more in regions where the ecosystem is more crowded. Its virtual machine and widget-based architectural approach offers wallet operators a means to provide an open wallet ecosystem and an extensive range of potential functions and services while maintaining a position at the center of the broader ecosystem. However. Appendix 1 Vendor scores Table 2: Market impact scores Sub-criteria Accenture Mobile wallet market presence Platform market growth Vendor scale Scale of wallet deployments Wallet focus Overall market impact score 4. Figure 29: Toro: execution assessment Source: Ovum Recommendation: Toro is a market challenger Although it is a less well-known player in the white-label mobile wallet space.2 © 2014 Ovum.0 5.

3 8.3 6.6 Mahindra Comviva 5.9 4.7 5.3 5.0 Toro 8.1 7.0 3.9 Sequent 4.4 7.5 5.2 6.4 7.0 7.0 5.1 4.3 SAP 6.9 Sequent 8.5 6.6 4.7 Toro 4.0 3.4 5.4 7.1 7.7 6.0 3.3 Sequent 6.0 5.1 7.8 8. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.9 Vendor support capability Partner network Large-scale deployment Multi-entity deployment Deployment options Training resources Overall execution assessment score Accenture 8.4 8.1 8.4 5.8 5.6 6.8 5.2 5.5 7.9 SAP 8.5 5.1 7.2 5.8 8.1 6.7 5.8 4.7 5.2 5.3 6.2 3.2 6.0 6.2 5.3 7.0 4.6 7.5 5.3 6.0 6.6 Paydiant 4.5 6.1 5.4 4.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform FIS 4.9 4.5 6.6 Paydiant 5.8 6.6 5.5 5.9 4.0 4.5 Source: Ovum Table 3: Technology scores Sub-criteria Platform architecture Platform roadmap Functionality Multi-region Platform Security and support configuration fraud and integration Overall technology assessment score Accenture 8.2 6.6 8.5 6.0 5.2 5.6 8.6 Mahindra Comviva 7.6 4.1 5.7 6.4 6.1 7.6 6.1 7.6 6.0 4.7 FIS 7.5 4.7 6.3 7.5 4.1 7. All rights reserved. IT0003-000614 (July 2014) © 2014 Ovum. Page 47 .4 4.8 Toro 4.4 6.0 5.6 5.5 4.8 6.5 8.9 Source: Ovum Table 4: Execution scores Sub-criteria Source: Ovum Appendix 2 Further reading Loyalty and Location Based Payment Services.0 SAP 6.4 7.6 6.5 5.1 8.4 4.6 6.6 9.4 8.1 6.3 6.8 4.5 8.7 6.1 5.1 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.8 8.0 4.7 7.4 6.4 FIS 7.0 6.4 Mahindra Comviva 3.5 Paydiant 8.9 7.

database rights and other intellectual property rights. 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. Copyright notice and disclaimer The contents of this product are protected by international copyright If you have further requirements. Page 48 . All rights reserved. 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. IT003-000574 (September 2013) On the Radar: Vocalink. IT003-000604 (February 2014) Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting and Electronic Retail Payment Switch Platform. Financial Services Technology gilles.ubaghs@ovum. Senior Analyst. The owner of these rights is Informa Telecoms and Media Limited. omissions or other inaccuracies. please contact us directly at consulting@ovum. our affiliates or other third party licensors. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited. IT003-000602 (January 2014) The Strategic Implications of Mobile on the Payments Market. All product and company names and logos contained within or appearing on this product are the trademarks. For more information about Ovum’s consulting capabilities. 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. including Informa Telecoms and Media Limited. This product may not be Ovum Consulting We hope that this analysis will help you make informed and imaginative business decisions. IT0003-000622 (September 2014) Author Gilles Ubaghs. reproduced. service marks or trading names of their respective owners. IT003-000606 (February 2014) On the Radar: Braintree. Ovum’s consulting team may be able to help you. distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of Informa Telecoms and Media Limited.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform Assessing the Long-Term impact of mPOS on the Payments Market. © 2014 Ovum.

All rights INTERNATIONAL OFFICES Beijing Dubai Hong Kong Hyderabad Johannesburg London Melbourne New York San Francisco Sao Paulo Tokyo © 2014 Ovum.Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform CONTACT US www. Page 49 . Unauthorized reproduction analystsupport@ovum.