Comparison
The columns where we lose are in the same table.
A comparison table that shows the vendor winning every row is a comparison table nobody believes. Here is where Ledgerfield is genuinely different, and where an incumbent is genuinely ahead — which today is most of the commercial rows.
| Ledgerfield | Incumbent platforms | |
|---|---|---|
| Build order | API-first — the back office is a client of the same operations | Console-first, API added afterwards; pockets of console-only functionality are common |
| API completeness | 308 operations, spec regenerated on every route change | Varies widely; documentation drift is the usual complaint |
| Tenancy | Designed in, then audited — global scope at the model layer | Frequently retrofitted onto an older single-brand codebase |
| Compliance controls | In the code path, with tests naming the bypass they close | Generally present; enforcement location is rarely something you can inspect |
| Same-game multi pricing | Correlation-adjusted, with the naive price returned alongside | Common in tier-one books; frequently absent below that |
| Pricing transparency | £10,000/month + configurable bps, published on this site | Almost universally "contact us" |
| Licensed casino content | None — no aggregator contract signed | Thousands of certified titles, live on day one |
| Live payment processing | Driver built and tested; none connected | Multiple PSPs live and reconciled |
| KYC / AML vendor | Policy layer built; no vendor connected | Live integrations, usually several |
| Live dealer | Not built | Standard |
| Operating licence | None held | Held or white-labelled in multiple jurisdictions |
| Production track record | Pre-launch — no operator, no traffic, no uptime figure | Years of it, at scale |
| Support organisation | Small and direct — you talk to the engineers | 24/7 account and support teams |
| Certification | No RTS test-house certification, no ISO 27001 audit | Certified and audited |
Read that table honestly and it says one thingLedgerfield is not a like-for-like replacement for a tier-one incumbent today. Six of those rows are losses and several are gating items for a licensed real-money launch. What the table also says is that the architectural rows — the ones that are expensive to change later — go the other way, and those are the rows an incumbent cannot fix for you at any price because they are consequences of a build order chosen a decade ago.
Who this is actually for
Three situations where the trade is worth making
01
You are building your own front end anyway
If your differentiation is product and UX, an API-complete PAM is worth more to you than a bundled front end you will replace. That is the case where our build order pays immediately.
02
You are launching several brands
Tenancy designed in rather than retrofitted, shared odds priced once, and no per-brand fee. The economics improve with brand count instead of degrading.
03
Your compliance function is the bottleneck
If your Head of Compliance needs to point a regulator at a mechanism rather than a policy document, being able to read the code path is worth more than a certification you inherit.
And where it is notIf you need to be live in a regulated market next quarter with certified content and a live PSP, we are the wrong choice today and we will tell you that on the first call rather than the fourth. That is not modesty; it is that a deal which fails at integration costs us more than the one we did not sign.
Bring the incumbent's proposal to the call.
We will go through it row by row, including the rows where it wins. That is a more useful hour for you than another demo.