If you’re a VP of Payments or COO at a credit union or community bank building your vendor shortlist for real-time payment capabilities, this comparison is built for your evaluation process. Supporting instant payments is one thing.
Supporting Request for Payment on both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service is a different conversation entirely, and the platforms that get it right are a much shorter list.
What Is Request for Payment (RfP)?
Request for Payment inverts the standard instant payment flow. Instead of the payer pushing funds, the payee initiates a payment request. The payer reviews it, approves it, and good funds settle instantly. The key operational difference is that RfP arrives with structured ISO 20022 remittance data attached, which means receivables teams can reconcile invoices automatically rather than matching payments by hand.
RfP funds settle as good funds within seconds on both the RTP network and FedNow. That speed, combined with the payer-approval model, eliminates the unauthorized debit exposure that makes ACH pull payments a persistent headache for billers and collections teams. Platforms like Alacriti payments have built dual-rail RfP around exactly this model, replacing the ACH pull risk window with a payer-initiated push that carries irrevocable good funds on arrival.
Under ACH rules, customers can dispute a debit for up to 60 days after settlement, leaving originators exposed to returns long after funds appear to have cleared (GoCardless). RfP replaces that risk window with a push-payment model where the payer initiates the transfer and funds are irrevocable on arrival (U.S. Bank). Settlement speed has consistently ranked as the leading benefit of digital payment adoption among financial professionals (AFP via Nacha), and RfP delivers exactly that, along with the ISO 20022 remittance data needed to make reconciliation automatic.
Two ISO 20022 message types govern RfP: pain.013, which carries the payment request, and pain.014, which carries the response or acknowledgment. The Federal Reserve Banks’ FedNow Service RFP Customer Experience Work Group published market practices using these exact standards for consumer-to-business bill payment, a signal that RfP infrastructure is moving from pilot-stage to institutionalized practice.
Supporting instant send and receive does not mean a platform supports RfP. That distinction is the core of this comparison.
Where RfP Adoption Stands in 2025
Fewer than half of U.S. banks had implemented RfP on either network as of late 2025, even where they already support basic instant payment send and receive (Due, 2026). That is a wide gap between RTP and FedNow enrollment and actual RfP activation, and it represents real opportunity for financial institutions that move now on bill pay, B2B invoicing, and member experience before the capability becomes standard.
Over 1,000 financial institutions had enrolled in the FedNow Service by end of 2024 (Federal Reserve Financial Services via ABA Banking Journal). Enrollment is not activation, and activation is not dual-rail RfP. Those are three distinct thresholds, and most vendor conversations conflate them.
Interest in RfP grew 8 percentage points to 22% in 2025 (Federal Reserve Financial Services). The institutions evaluating platforms today are ahead of the market, not behind it. The RTP network raised its per-transaction limit to $10 million, announced in December 2024 and effective February 2025 (The Clearing House), a development that significantly expanded RfP’s viability for B2B invoicing and commercial payment use cases that were previously out of scope.
Real-time payment volume on the RTP network grew 38% year-over-year in 2024, with total payment value up 94% (The Clearing House, 2025). Commercial invoicing is emerging as a primary driver of near-term RfP demand at financial institutions building their go-to-market case, a trend accelerated by the higher transaction ceiling now in place.
The meaningful threshold isn’t single-rail RfP availability. It’s dual-rail support, covering both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service, because your institution’s counterparty reach depends on both networks being covered.
How to Read This Comparison
Five platforms are evaluated here across five criteria: RfP support on TCH’s RTP® network, RfP support on the FedNow® Service, structured ISO 20022 remittance data handling, Request for Information (RFI) messaging availability, and core-agnostic architecture. RFI messaging is worth explaining. It’s a companion message type that lets account holders flag invoice disputes directly within their banking app, without leaving the payment flow. Most vendor content doesn’t mention it. It matters for billing and collections use cases.
A disclosure worth making: Alacriti publishes this article and appears as the first entry. The competitor entries aim for honest, balanced analysis, with genuine strengths first and considerations second.
Payment Platform RfP Capability Comparison (2025)
| Platform | RTP® RfP | FedNow® RfP | RFI Messaging | Core-Agnostic |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alacriti (Orbipay Payments Hub) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Jack Henry (PayCenter) | Yes (via Rail Finder) | Yes | Not confirmed | No (core-tied) |
| ACI Worldwide (Connectic) | Yes | Yes | Not confirmed | Partial |
| Fiserv (Enterprise Payments Platform) | Yes | Yes | Not confirmed | No (suite-tied) |
| Finzly (Payment Galaxy) | Yes | Yes | Not confirmed | Yes |
1. Alacriti (Orbipay Payments Hub)
Alacriti’s Orbipay Payments Hub delivers dual-rail RfP on both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service through a single cloud-native API, with structured ISO 20022 remittance data passed through natively to your receivables systems.
The built-in Request for Information messaging is the capability that separates Orbipay from most platforms in this list. Account holders can initiate an invoice dispute from within their banking app without leaving the payment flow. For billers and commercial clients managing high-volume receivables, that in-app resolution path reduces back-and-forth outside the system and keeps dispute data structured and traceable.
Alacriti’s architecture is core-agnostic. It integrates with Jack Henry, Fiserv, and other core banking systems without tying RfP capability to the core provider’s roadmap. If your institution wants to move on real-time payments without waiting for your core’s next major release cycle, that independence is operationally meaningful.
Alacriti reports serving 20% of U.S. credit union members (company-stated figure). Named credit union clients include Navy Federal CU, Mountain America CU, and Patelco CU. The platform holds SOC, PCI DSS, HIPAA, NACHA, ISO 20022, and AWS Well-Architected certifications.
Best for: Credit unions and community banks seeking dual-rail RfP with RFI dispute resolution, core-independent deployment, and a production track record in the credit union segment.
2. Jack Henry (PayCenter)
Jack Henry PayCenter is certified for FedNow® Service send and receive functions, with RfP available through its Rail Finder routing layer. It’s a credible option for institutions already on the Jack Henry core, with deep relationships across the community bank and credit union segment.
The main consideration is that RfP functionality is tied to the Jack Henry core platform. Institutions not on Jack Henry face meaningful integration complexity. Timeline commitments for new RfP functionalities have been a reported concern for evaluators, and scalability for high-volume commercial payment use cases has raised questions from some institutions during evaluation.
Best for: Community banks and credit unions on the Jack Henry core that want payment capability within their existing vendor relationship.
3. ACI Worldwide (Connectic)
ACI Worldwide is certified for both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service across multiple payment functionalities. Its C-level relationships at large banks are well-established, and its ability to handle custom development at enterprise scale is a genuine strength.
The consideration for community and mid-tier financial institutions is pricing. ACI is positioned at the enterprise tier, and the cost and complexity of implementation may exceed what a $2B credit union or regional bank needs from a payments platform.
Best for: Large banks with enterprise-scale payment volumes and budget for custom development work.
4. Fiserv (Enterprise Payments Platform)
Fiserv’s scale is real. Its presence across institutions of all sizes and its full offerings in core banking, digital, and payments give it broad institutional familiarity. For institutions already deep in the Fiserv suite, staying on-platform has obvious appeal.
Two operational considerations stand out for RfP evaluation. Transaction reporting for faster payments is delayed, with details available the next business day rather than in real time. Implementation timelines for faster payments have exceeded six months in reported cases, which affects your go-live planning.
Best for: Institutions already committed to the Fiserv suite and willing to work within its implementation and reporting constraints.
5. Finzly (Payment Galaxy)
Finzly’s API-first architecture and early FedNow® Service adoption make it a technically modern option. Its Payment Galaxy platform supports FedNow, TCH’s RTP® network, ACH, Fedwire, and SWIFT, a broad rail set for a mid-market vendor. Developer-friendly infrastructure is a genuine differentiator for tech-forward institutions.
The considerations are practical. Finzly has no Zelle integration as of this writing (confirmed by Early Warning Services, though Finzly has indicated Zelle is on a 24-month roadmap). No confirmed integration with Alkami exists for credit unions.
Finzly’s smaller market presence also means its production track record is thinner than legacy vendors. That matters when your institution needs confidence in platform stability at scale.
Best for: Tech-forward mid-size banks comfortable with a newer vendor and prioritizing API flexibility over established market footprint.
Questions to Ask Every Vendor Before You Decide
Vendor marketing rarely distinguishes RfP from basic instant payment support. Before you evaluate any platform on this list, push for specifics at the message level.
- Does your platform support RfP as both sender and receiver on TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service, in production today, not on roadmap?
- How does structured ISO 20022 remittance data flow to our receivables system, natively, or through manual extraction?
- Does your platform include Request for Information messaging? Can account holders initiate an invoice dispute from within their banking app?
- Is RfP capability tied to our core banking provider, or is your architecture core-agnostic?
- What is your implementation timeline for RfP go-live, and which financial institutions are live on dual-rail RfP today?
Any vendor that can’t answer the last question with specific institution names deserves a follow-up. Roadmap claims are not production deployments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Request for Payment on RTP and FedNow?
Request for Payment (RfP) is a message flow where the payee initiates a payment request using the ISO 20022 pain.013 standard, the payer reviews and approves it, and funds settle instantly using good funds. It’s the inverse of a standard credit push payment. Both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service support RfP, but financial institutions must activate it separately from basic send/receive enrollment.
What is the difference between RfP and instant payment send/receive?
Instant payment send/receive means your institution can push or receive credit transfers in real time. RfP adds a payee-initiated request layer with structured ISO 20022 remittance data, payer approval, and good-funds settlement. The remittance data is what makes RfP operationally different. It enables automated receivables reconciliation rather than manual invoice matching.
Do I need dual-rail RfP support, or is one network enough?
Your counterparty reach depends on both networks. Institutions that receive bill payments or B2B invoices from payers whose banks are only on one rail will miss transactions if your platform only covers the other. Dual-rail RfP support, covering both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service, gives your institution the broadest coverage for member and commercial payment use cases.
What is Request for Information messaging in the context of RfP?
Request for Information (RFI) messaging is a companion capability layered on top of RfP. It lets account holders flag an invoice dispute directly within their banking app, within the payment flow rather than through a separate channel. Not all platforms include RFI support. Alacriti’s Orbipay Payments Hub includes built-in RFI messaging, which reduces dispute resolution time and keeps structured records within the payment system.
Is FedNow the same as RTP?
No. TCH’s RTP® network is operated by The Clearing House and has been live since 2017. The FedNow® Service is operated by the Federal Reserve and launched in 2023. Both support real-time credit transfers and RfP, but they’re separate networks with different participant bases. Dual-rail connectivity, covering both networks, gives financial institutions the widest reach for instant payment and RfP use cases.
- Agile Practitioner Certification for Data Center Teams: Accelerating Infrastructure Projects - May 2, 2026
- Contact Center Testing for High-Performance Infrastructure: Ensuring Scalability and Reliability - May 1, 2026
- Digital Transformation Conference Insights: What Enterprise Leaders Need to Know - April 13, 2026