Building Embedded Payments for a SaaS Platform
WorkFlow Harbor's 1,200 software customers left the platform to collect payments elsewhere. Embedded card and ACH acceptance reached 46% adoption in six months.
- Client
- WorkFlow Harbor
- Client type
- Vertical SaaS platform
- Company size
- 100–500 employees
- Locations
- 1 (platform)
- Processing volume
- $9.2M / month across sub-merchants
Executive summary
WorkFlow Harbor managed jobs, scheduling, and invoicing but stopped short of collecting money, so customers finished their workflow in someone else's tool. We built embedded card and ACH acceptance with automated sub-merchant onboarding, transaction reporting, and a revenue-share structure.
46% customer adoption within six months.
14% increase in platform revenue.
Higher customer retention among payment-enabled accounts.
Median sub-merchant activation time under one business day.
Client profile
- Industry
- Vertical SaaS for service contractors
- Software customers
- 1,200
- Processed volume
- $9.2 million per month at scale
- Average sub-merchant volume
- $16,700 per month
- Model
- Subscription plus payments revenue share
The challenge
Customers left the platform to collect payments through external systems.
- Invoice-to-cash was invisible, so product analytics stopped at the invoice.
- Customers asked for payments in nearly every win/loss review.
- The referral arrangement produced negligible revenue and no control.
- Competitors with embedded payments were winning on workflow completeness.
Why the previous setup was failing
- • Invoices generated in-platform, paid outside it.
- • A read-only link to one third-party processor for a minority of customers.
- • No visibility into whether an invoice was ever paid.
- • Support tickets about payments the platform could not see or resolve.
- • Referral models give the platform no control over onboarding, pricing, or support.
- • Without payment data the product could not close the invoice-to-cash loop.
- • Customers were forced into a second system for the last step of their workflow.
- • No sub-merchant onboarding meant weeks of friction to activate a customer.
Our assessment
- Customer research across 60 accounts on payment behavior and willingness to adopt.
- Volume and margin modeling across payfac, payfac-as-a-service, and ISV revenue-share structures.
- Compliance and underwriting obligation review for each model.
- Product scoping for onboarding, acceptance, reporting, and dispute surfaces.
The recommended solution
- Embedded card and ACH acceptance inside the existing invoicing flow.
- Automated sub-merchant onboarding with underwriting handled by the sponsor.
- Payfac-as-a-service structure to capture economics without full liability.
- In-product transaction reporting, payouts, and dispute management.
- Revenue-share model with transparent pricing surfaced to customers.
Implementation Process
- 1
Weeks 1–4: Structure
Model selection, sponsor agreement, compliance review, and economics finalized.
- 2
Weeks 5–12: Build
Onboarding, acceptance, reporting, and payout surfaces built and certified.
- 3
Weeks 13–16: Beta
40 customers live with hands-on support and weekly iteration.
- 4
Weeks 17–26: Scale
General availability, in-product activation campaigns, and adoption tracking.
Technology and integrations
Integration changes
- • Payment APIs embedded into invoicing, scheduling, and customer records.
- • Sub-merchant onboarding flow with document upload and status tracking.
- • Accounting connectors extended to include payment and payout data.
- • Webhook pipeline into the data warehouse for adoption analytics.
Processing changes
- • Card and ACH acceptance under a platform sponsorship structure.
- • Automated underwriting that returns a decision without manual review for straightforward applicants, subject to the sponsor's policy.
- • Tokenized card-on-file and recurring billing exposed as platform features.
- • Chargeback and dispute workflows surfaced in-product.
Obstacles and resolutions
Support team had no payments expertise.
Tiered support model: platform handles product issues, escalation path for underwriting and risk.
Some customers were mid-contract with an existing processor.
Staged adoption plan letting customers run both until contracts lapsed.
Underwriting rejections risked a poor first impression.
Pre-screening in the onboarding flow with a clear alternative path for declined accounts.
Measurable results
Not a cost-reduction engagement — payments contributed an estimated 14% incremental platform revenue with margin retained in-house.
Operational improvements
- • Invoice-to-cash fully visible inside the platform.
- • Sub-merchant onboarding automated instead of handed to a third party.
- • Payment support handled within the product experience.
Reporting improvements
- • Transaction, payout, and dispute reporting for every sub-merchant.
- • Platform-level adoption and revenue analytics in the data warehouse.
- • Reconciliation between invoices, payments, and payouts automated.
Funding improvements
- • Predictable payout schedules with in-product visibility.
- • Instant and next-day payout options available to sub-merchants.
Customer experience improvements
- • Customers finish the entire workflow without leaving the platform.
- • Their end customers pay from a link on the invoice by card or ACH.
- • One login for jobs, invoicing, payments, and payouts.
Before and after
| Measure | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Payment adoption | 0% embedded | 46% of customers |
| Activation time | 2–3 weeks (external) | <1 business day |
| Payment revenue | Referral fees only | 14% of platform revenue |
| Invoice-to-cash visibility | None | Full in-product |
Related services
Payments inside your software product — done responsibly.
Learn morePayments wired into the systems that already run your business.
Learn moreBank-to-bank payments that lower cost and unlock recurring revenue.
Learn moreRelated integrations
Related industries
Frequently asked questions
Are these results guaranteed?+
No. This engagement is demonstration content built on realistic scenarios. Actual outcomes depend on your volume, mix, software, and current pricing — which is exactly what a review establishes.
How long did the WorkFlow Harbor engagement take?+
The implementation ran across 4 phases; most comparable environments cut over in 7 to 14 business days once scope is agreed.
Do we have to change software to see similar results?+
Usually not. Most of this work happens in merchant structure, pricing, data capture, and integration configuration around software you already run.
Can we see a version of this analysis for our business?+
Yes. A payment review returns the same structure — assessment, recommendation, projected impact — against your own statements.
Want this analysis for your business?
Send us your current setup and we'll return a written assessment covering cost, integrations, reporting, and funding.
Related solutions and references
The pages that explain the payment methods, integrations and account structure behind this engagement.
Ready to see what your setup could look like?
Book a working session focused on outcomes like the WorkFlow Harbor engagement. Clear recommendations, no obligation.
- • 150+ software platforms reviewed
- • 1,500+ merchant environments evaluated
- • Under 24-hour average response time
- • 7–14 business day onboarding