The Story of Adyen

A structural look at how a unified payment platform built from the ground up created architectural advantages that acquisition-driven competitors struggle to match.

Introduction

Adyen (ADYEN) occupies a distinctive position in the global payments landscape. While most large payment processors reached their current scale through decades of acquisitions—stitching together acquiring, processing, gateway, and issuing capabilities from separate companies—Adyen built its entire technology stack as a single, integrated platform from the beginning. This architectural decision, made at the company's founding in 2006, created structural advantages that become more apparent as the payment industry grows more complex. The difference between a platform built as one system and a platform assembled from many is not merely technical; it shapes economics, merchant experience, and competitive positioning in ways that compound over time.

The payment processing industry appears commoditized on the surface—moving money from buyer to seller seems like a standardized utility. But the operational reality is far more complex. Merchants operating across countries, currencies, and payment methods face enormous complexity in authorization rates, fraud management, settlement, and reconciliation. How a processor handles this complexity—through a unified system or through interconnected legacy systems—determines the quality of service and the cost structure. Adyen's single-platform approach addresses this complexity at the architectural level rather than the integration level.

Understanding Adyen requires looking past the familiar framing of payment processing as a commodity business and examining how architectural choices create divergent structural outcomes. The company's story is not about payments per se but about what happens when a complex, multi-dimensional problem is solved through unified design rather than incremental acquisition.

The Long-Term Arc

Adyen's development follows a pattern distinct from most payment companies: organic growth on a single codebase, enterprise-first customer acquisition, and geographic expansion driven by following existing merchants into new markets rather than acquiring local processors.

How did Adyen build its payment platform from scratch?

Adyen was founded in Amsterdam in 2006 by a team of payment industry veterans who had experienced the limitations of legacy payment infrastructure firsthand. Their central insight was that the payment industry's patchwork of acquired and integrated systems created unnecessary complexity, data fragmentation, and cost. Rather than building another piece of the puzzle, they set out to build the entire puzzle as a single system—acquiring, processing, risk management, and settlement on one platform, running on one codebase.

This decision to build from scratch—rather than acquire and integrate—imposed significant constraints in the early years. Growth was slower than it might have been through acquisition. The platform required years of development before it could serve the largest merchants. But the architectural choice meant that every capability added to the platform was native, not bolted on. Data flowed through a single system, enabling unified reporting, cross-channel insights, and optimization that fragmented architectures could not achieve. The founders accepted slower initial growth in exchange for structural coherence that would compound over time.

Why did Adyen target the largest merchants first?

Unlike many payment companies that grew by serving small and medium businesses before moving upmarket, Adyen pursued the world's largest merchants from the outset. Early clients included major global brands—companies operating across dozens of countries with complex payment needs. This enterprise-first strategy was deliberate: large merchants experienced the pain of fragmented payment infrastructure most acutely and valued the unified approach most highly. They also generated the transaction volumes that drove Adyen's economics.

The enterprise focus created a virtuous cycle. Serving a global retailer across thirty countries required Adyen to build local payment capabilities in each market—local acquiring licenses, connections to domestic payment methods, compliance with regional regulations. Once built for one enterprise client, these capabilities became available to every merchant on the platform. Each new enterprise relationship expanded the platform's geographic and functional coverage, making it more attractive to the next enterprise prospect. The cost of serving each incremental merchant declined as the platform's capabilities grew.

What did Adyen build natively onto its platform?

Adyen progressively expanded from payment processing into adjacent capabilities—issuing (creating virtual and physical cards), in-person payment terminals, and financial products for merchants. The critical distinction is that each expansion was built natively on the existing platform rather than acquired separately. When Adyen launched its issuing capability, it ran on the same infrastructure as its acquiring and processing. When it developed point-of-sale terminals, the hardware connected to the same platform that handled online payments.

This full-stack integration—acquiring, processing, issuing, and point-of-sale on a single platform—enables capabilities that fragmented competitors cannot easily replicate. A merchant using Adyen for both online and in-store payments sees unified data across channels. Revenue reconciliation, fraud patterns, and customer behavior flow through one system. Competitors offering similar breadth through acquired components must build integration layers that approximate this unity without achieving it, creating ongoing maintenance burden and data fragmentation that native architecture avoids.

Structural Patterns

Single-Platform Architecture — Adyen's entire payment stack runs on one codebase, built organically. This architectural unity eliminates the integration tax that acquisition-driven competitors pay perpetually. Every feature, every market, every payment method connects natively rather than through middleware, producing superior data flow and lower operational complexity.
Enterprise Merchant Concentration — Adyen deliberately targets the largest global merchants—companies with complex, multi-country, multi-channel payment needs. These merchants generate enormous transaction volumes, experience the highest pain from fragmented infrastructure, and are least likely to churn once integrated. The concentration creates revenue density that supports high margins.
Geographic Expansion Through Merchant Following — Rather than acquiring local processors to enter new markets, Adyen builds local capabilities to follow existing merchants into new geographies. This organic expansion preserves architectural unity while building a global footprint. Each market entered for one merchant becomes available to all merchants on the platform.
Take-Rate Economics — Adyen earns a percentage of each transaction processed—a take rate that varies by market, payment method, and merchant size. Revenue grows with the volume of commerce flowing through the platform. As the platform's fixed costs are spread across growing volumes, margins expand structurally.
Switching Cost Accumulation — Enterprise merchants integrate Adyen deeply into their commerce infrastructure—checkout flows, reconciliation systems, fraud rules, reporting dashboards. The depth of integration creates switching costs that increase over time as merchants build more processes around Adyen's platform. Migration to a competitor requires rebuilding these integrations across every market and channel.
Architectural Moat Against Acquisition-Driven Competitors — Competitors who assembled their capabilities through acquisitions carry permanent integration debt. Rebuilding a unified platform would require rewriting their entire technology stack while continuing to serve existing clients—a feat that is theoretically possible but practically prohibitive. Adyen's architectural advantage is not a feature that can be copied but a foundation that would need to be rebuilt from scratch.

Key Turning Points

2006: Founding Decision to Build from Scratch — The choice to construct a single, unified payment platform rather than acquire and integrate existing components defined Adyen's entire trajectory. This decision was expensive in the short term—it delayed time to market and limited early revenue. But it created the architectural coherence that became the company's primary competitive advantage. Every subsequent capability benefited from this foundational choice.

2015–2017: Winning Marquee Enterprise Accounts — Adyen's ability to win and serve the payment needs of some of the world's largest technology and retail companies validated the enterprise-first strategy. These relationships demonstrated that the unified platform could handle extreme scale and complexity. Each marquee win served as a reference for subsequent enterprise sales, creating credibility that accelerated merchant acquisition. The concentration of global commerce through the platform reached a density that made Adyen's data and optimization capabilities meaningfully superior.

2018: Amsterdam Stock Exchange Listing — Adyen's IPO on Euronext Amsterdam provided public market validation of the company's economics and structural position. The listing revealed margins and growth rates that demonstrated the platform's operating leverage. More importantly, the public market scrutiny confirmed that Adyen's architectural advantages translated into financial outcomes—not just technical elegance but durable economic superiority over acquisition-assembled competitors.

Risks and Fragilities

Adyen's enterprise concentration creates a form of customer concentration risk. The largest merchants on the platform generate a disproportionate share of transaction volume. The loss of a major enterprise client—or renegotiation of terms by a merchant with sufficient leverage—could materially affect revenue and take rates. While switching costs protect against casual churn, the largest merchants have the resources and bargaining power to extract concessions or, in extreme cases, build internal payment capabilities that reduce reliance on external processors.

The take-rate model faces structural pressure as volumes grow. Larger merchants expect lower per-transaction fees as their volumes increase. This creates a dynamic where Adyen's largest and most strategically important clients are also the ones applying the most downward pressure on pricing. Revenue growth depends on new merchant acquisition and geographic expansion offsetting the take-rate compression that occurs naturally as existing merchants grow. If new merchant acquisition slows while pricing pressure continues, margin expansion could stall.

Competitive dynamics are evolving as traditional processors invest in platform modernization and newer entrants target specific segments of Adyen's market. While rebuilding a unified platform from scratch is prohibitively expensive for incumbent competitors, targeted investments in specific capabilities—better authorization rates in particular markets, superior fraud detection for specific verticals—could erode Adyen's advantage at the margins. The risk is not a single competitor replicating the full platform but a combination of specialized competitors collectively addressing the needs that drive merchants to Adyen's unified approach.

What Investors Can Learn

Architectural decisions at founding compound over decades — Adyen's choice to build a unified platform from scratch created advantages that became more valuable as the business scaled. Foundational architectural choices often matter more than subsequent product decisions because they constrain or enable everything built on top of them.
Organic construction and acquisition produce different structural outcomes — Companies that build capabilities organically achieve coherence that acquisition-driven competitors cannot replicate through integration. The difference is not visible in feature lists but manifests in data quality, operational complexity, and long-term maintenance costs.
Enterprise-first strategies create different economics than bottoms-up growth — Targeting the largest customers first generates revenue density and creates reference accounts that accelerate subsequent sales. The tradeoff is slower initial customer counts and higher concentration risk.
Volume-based revenue models align growth with global commerce — Take-rate economics tie a processor's revenue to the growth of digital commerce. Understanding the relationship between commerce growth, merchant mix, and take-rate evolution reveals the true trajectory of the business.
Integration depth creates switching costs that increase over time — When a product becomes deeply woven into a customer's operational infrastructure, the cost of switching grows with each additional integration. Businesses that deepen customer integration over time build compounding retention advantages.

Inside CompanyGraph

View this perspective inside CompanyGraph.