Authorize.net
Card gateway for recurring billing
Best for small and mid-market publishers.
Summary review · Last verified Nov 12, 2026 · Scored on 10 criteria · Vendors can't pay for scores
Research by Vahe Arabian · Scored and edited by the SODP team
Key facts
- Score
- 2.3 / 5
- Tier
- Limited
- Pricing model
- Gateway fee plus per-transaction
- Type
- Payment processor
- Founded
- 1996
- HQ
- San Francisco, United States
- Headcount
- 48
At a glance
- Authorize.net scores 2.3/5 (Limited) in Benchmark Grid's independent payment processing platforms benchmark, assessed on 10 published criteria.
- It is built for small and mid-market publishers.
- Strongest on Regulatory Compliance & Licensing (4.5) and Authorisation & Uptime Reliability (4.2); weakest on Global Payment Method Coverage (2.1).
- Pricing: Gateway fee plus per-transaction.
- Scores last verified 12 Nov 2026. Vendors cannot pay for a score or a position.
Summary
Established gateway with customer vaulting and recurring billing support, offering simple set-up for publishers needing standard card processing.
Score breakdown
2.3 = 0.45 × 3.20 capability + 0.40 × 1.00 publisher fit + 0.15 × 3.20 cost
Σ (criterion rating × weight) across 10 criteria · scale 1 (poor) → 5 (excellent)
Standard gateway and per-transaction pricing is industry-standard but lacks volume-based discounting transparency.
16% of capability · What we check: Calculates the total percentage and flat fees applied to every transaction to determine overall platform cost.
Primarily focused on standard card processing with limited support for alternative global payment methods.
14% of capability · What we check: Lists the number of unique local and international payment methods supported for diverse customer regions.
As an established legacy provider, the platform offers very high uptime and reliable authorization performance.
12% of capability · What we check: Tracks documented system downtime and successful transaction authorisation rates during the last twelve months.
Includes robust, built-in fraud detection tools common for established card gateways.
12% of capability · What we check: Available security tools like machine learning filters, address verification, and automated device fingerprinting.
Offers standard banking settlement times that meet industry expectations but do not lead the market.
10% of capability · What we check: Measures the calendar days elapsed from the moment of transaction to funds appearing in the merchant bank account.
Extensive legacy documentation and well-known APIs make integration straightforward for most developers.
10% of capability · What we check: The quality of API documentation and availability of pre-built software development kits for web and mobile.
Support for international transactions is functional but lacks deep multi-currency optimization features.
10% of capability · What we check: Counts the number of distinct settlement currencies and international payout locations supported by the provider.
Highly compliant and mature in managing PCI-DSS requirements and financial regulations.
8% of capability · What we check: Valid PCI-DSS certification and local financial service licenses held by the platform in active operating regions.
Provides adequate reporting dashboards that cover standard reconciliation needs for small to mid-market users.
5% of capability · What we check: Native exports of transaction data into common accounting software and real-time dashboard analytics tools.
Offers standard support and chargeback management tools expected from a long-standing payment gateway.
3% of capability · What we check: Records response time guarantees and the availability of automated tools for managing and disputing customer chargebacks.
Authorize.net scores 2.3/5 in Benchmark Grid's independent Best Payment Processing Platforms for Publishers benchmark (benchmarkgrid.com/best-payment-processing-platforms-for-publishers/authorize-net, verified Nov 12, 2026)
Who uses it
We haven't detected any publishers running Authorize.net yet.
Cost of ownership
Pricing
Gateway fee plus per-transaction
Pricing unclear for your setup? — we'll make the introduction. Free, and it never affects the score.
Cost data sourced from vendor pricing pages and community signals. Vendors may dispute any factor.
What users say
Users value the platform's advanced security and reliable integrations, though some report challenges with complex implementation, higher pricing, and occasional frustrations regarding the overall user experience.
Sources: Reddit 72% · Hacker News 21% · Blog 3% · G2 2% · X 2%
Most discussed
Recent quotes
"Authorize.net offers a seamless user experience, which if you're in need of credit card processing will prove very useful indeed"
Positive·Blog·6y ago·via Yahoo Finance
"I want to be able to handle recurring payments but everything looked complex with companies like authorize.net working only in the US."
Negative·Hacker News·16y ago
"Re-sharing for people wondering why I use @AuthorizeNet instead ... It’s ok, now I know my merchant account rep by name, they know me, they know my business, I have a number I can call, even a guy I can text."
Positive·X
"Authorize.net says the problem is not on their end, but the "Card Testing" attacks keep coming at a rate of hundreds per hour which requires me disable payments in authorize.net."
Negative·Reddit·2mo ago
"Wordpress woocommerce site with authorize.net payment gateway continously getting fraudulent charges"
Negative·Reddit·3mo ago
61 mentions from 5 independent sources, each read and scored by our analyser. Mentions we could not tie to a real user, and those flagged as promotional, are excluded. Sentiment is opinion, and is independent of the verified publisher adoptions shown above.
The company behind Authorize.net
Company facts come from an independent business-data record rather than the vendor's own site.
- Founded
- 1996
- Employees
- 48
- Headquarters
- San Francisco, United States
- Ownership
- Public Company
Compare Authorize.net
The head-to-heads publishers look at most, then the closest contests in the same benchmark.
FAQ
How is Authorize.net scored?
Authorize.net scores 2.3 out of 5 in Benchmark Grid's independent Best Payment Processing Platforms for Publishers benchmark. The overall figure blends capability (45%), publisher fit (40%) and cost of ownership (15%). Capability is itself a weighted average of 10 criteria; the heaviest are transaction pricing & fees (16%), global payment method coverage (14%) and authorisation & uptime reliability (12%). Vendors cannot pay for a score.
What size publisher is Authorize.net built for?
Authorize.net is built for small and local publishers and mid-market publishers. That is the vendor's own stated target, and it is one of the inputs to our publisher-fit score — a platform that suits a national newsroom often carries more operational load than a small one can absorb.
What does Authorize.net cost?
Gateway fee plus per-transaction Our cost-of-ownership score is 3.2/5, which weighs pricing transparency, entry cost, implementation cost, hidden-fee risk and ongoing cost. Ask the vendor for a written first-year figure that includes implementation before you commit.
Can Authorize.net pay for a better score?
No. Scores come from our editorial review of the product's documentation, demos and public evidence. A vendor can claim this listing or request a re-review, but nothing they buy changes a score or a position.
Verify a claim
Enter a claim about Authorize.net and our AI will check it against the benchmark data on this page. Claims we have already fact-checked are listed below.
3 verifications remaining
Where to next
Is this your tool? Claim the listing, get your score badge or request a hands-on review. Neither changes the score.