Fintech is evolving at incredible speed. New payment methods appear every month, regulations shift across entire regions, and compliance expectations grow more demanding with every audit cycle. As a result, founders and product teams eventually face one of the most important strategic decisions: build their fintech software from the ground up or rent an existing platform that already includes the required infrastructure.
At first glance the choice seems simple. In reality, both paths affect your launch timeline, total cost of ownership, risk exposure, and long-term scalability. Because of this, understanding the difference between building and renting is essential for any company that wants to survive in today’s competitive fintech landscape.
This guide explains everything in straightforward language, without technical jargon or marketing fluff. The goal is simple: help you make a confident, well-informed decision.
Understanding what “build or rent” actually means
Before comparing the two options, it is important to clarify what these terms mean inside the fintech ecosystem. Many teams assume that building only involves writing code. However, that is only the beginning. Fintech software sits on top of compliance layers, payment rails, regulatory requirements, and operational processes that must be maintained daily.
When you build, you become responsible for every part of this structure. You must design your onboarding flow, connect to KYC and KYB providers, implement AML logic, create risk-scoring models, support IBAN routing, and integrate with processors. In addition, you must maintain servers, ensure uptime, respond to incidents, and pass multiple annual audits.
When you rent, you rely on infrastructure that has already been tested, certified, and audited. The provider takes care of payment routing, transaction monitoring, onboarding verification, AML checks, card issuing workflows, settlements, and security updates. As a result, your team can focus on product development, marketing, business growth, and customer support.
Because these two paths differ so dramatically, choosing between them becomes a strategic decision rather than a technical one.
Why some companies choose to build their own fintech software
Building your own fintech engine is a demanding task, but it remains a valid choice for certain organizations. These companies usually share common traits. For example, they already employ a strong engineering team that understands the complexity of financial systems. In addition, they often require extremely specific workflows that no provider supports.
Some companies also operate at a scale where full ownership becomes cheaper in the long run. When processing millions of monthly transactions, even a small percentage difference in operational costs can lead to meaningful savings. Therefore, building may eventually justify itself.
Another group includes organizations in regulated industries with unique compliance requirements. They prefer total control over data flows, internal logs, and risk rules. In such cases, external platforms cannot offer sufficient flexibility.
Although building seems attractive for companies that want control, the cost of ownership remains significant. Despite this, the option makes sense in several scenarios:
Instead of choosing a provider, some companies genuinely need to build everything themselves. For example, they may require a distinctive user experience that cannot be replicated through external tools. In addition, certain teams depend on integrations no existing platform can offer. Moreover, others invest heavily in proprietary risk models that require full ownership of the technology. Finally, some organisations must follow strict internal policies that make external platforms unsuitable.
Whenever these points dominate your strategy, building your own system becomes a realistic choice. However, it still requires long-term commitment and significant resources.
Why renting fintech infrastructure is often the smarter decision
Most companies do not need to build their own payments or onboarding engines. Instead, they need reliable, compliant software that works consistently without consuming their entire budget. Renting delivers that stability.
To begin with, renting dramatically accelerates time to market. Instead of waiting twelve to eighteen months before launching, you can integrate ready modules and activate payments in days or weeks. This becomes especially important when operating in competitive markets where speed determines your ability to acquire users.
Another advantage involves predictable pricing. Building may appear cheaper at the start, but costs rise quickly as the system grows. Meanwhile, renting allows you to operate with transparent pricing and no hidden infrastructure expenses.
In addition, renting removes the need to hire large compliance teams. KYC processes, KYB flows, AML reviews, and risk scoring consume thousands of development hours. Providers that offer ready infrastructure save your team from handling these tasks manually.
Finally, renting helps you avoid constant maintenance. When regulations change, software updates become mandatory. Providers track these updates for you, reducing your operational workload.
This combination of speed, safety, and cost efficiency explains why most modern teams prefer renting instead of building.
The real hidden costs and risks of building your own system
Many founders underestimate how demanding fintech development becomes after the initial launch. Therefore, it is useful to highlight the hidden responsibilities that companies often overlook.
Regulatory updates appear several times per year. When new compliance standards emerge, your system must support them immediately. In addition, AML rules evolve constantly. If you fail to update them in time, regulators may impose penalties or restrictions.
Infrastructure expenses also grow over time. As transaction volume increases, server costs rise. You must scale databases, increase API capacity, and invest in monitoring tools. This creates a permanent financial burden.
Fraud detection presents another challenge. Criminal techniques evolve quickly, so your risk-scoring model must be updated regularly. Failure to do so may result in chargebacks, disputes, and blocked payments.
Audits require preparation. Regulators expect detailed reports, logs, evidence of monitoring, and a transparent compliance structure. Preparing this documentation takes weeks each year.
Finally, operational support becomes a constant obligation. Financial systems must run without interruption. As a result, you need on-call engineers who respond to incidents at any hour.
These hidden costs often transform building into a long, expensive commitment that few teams can support. As a result, many companies eventually migrate to rented solutions after investing heavily in internal systems.
A neutral, practical checklist to guide your decision
To make the build-versus-rent decision easier, here is a simple checklist. Use honest evaluation, and the answer often becomes clear.
Choose building if you:
- Have a mature engineering team with fintech knowledge.
- Need custom flows unavailable from providers.
- Operate at high transaction volume.
- Are ready for audits and ongoing compliance work.
Choose renting if you:
- Want to launch quickly.
- Need predictable monthly costs.
- Do not want to maintain AML, KYC, and risk checks.
- Prefer stability over constant rebuilding.
- Want IBAN accounts, payments, and cards without developing them.
If most of your points appear in the second group, renting is the more strategic option.
How SharPay helps companies avoid the cost of building
SharPay provides ready financial infrastructure designed for businesses that want to launch without building full systems. The platform includes IBAN accounts, SEPA transfers, payment processing, virtual and physical cards, risk monitoring, AML automation, and compliance-friendly workflows for onboarding.
In addition, SharPay supports multi-currency accounts, payouts, merchant operations, and verification tools. Because the platform already includes dozens of integrations, you avoid spending months on development.