ovum decision matrix - selecting a white-label mobile wallet .../media/accenture/...the mobile...

Publication Date: 04 Dec 2014 | Product code: IT0003-000633

Gilles Ubaghs

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting a White-label Mobile Wallet Platform


© 2014 Ovum. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Summary

Catalyst

Market expectations of mobile payments remain sky high, with an ever-growing number of consumer-

facing platforms and services available. The mechanics of how mobile payments operate and what

functions they offer are also broad-ranging, including peer-to-peer (P2P), remote, and proximity

payments, and they continue to diversify. For issuing banks this poses a particular challenge: they

must engage with these emerging technologies if they are to avoid being disintermediated and losing

their positioning with consumers, and, more critically, becoming a back-of-wallet proposition. As a

result, all issuing banks are now being forced to develop their own mobile payments roadmap in some

form.

Central to mobile payments is the mobile wallet, the consumer-facing platform that acts as the front

end for wider mobile payment services and functionality. Deploying a wallet platform capable of

integrating future changes and remaining flexible to market developments is key to the long-term

positioning of banks in the mobile payments space. Few banks will have the resources or desire to

create a mobile wallet platform from scratch, and white-label mobile wallet providers are poised to

help meet this demand by integrating into bank payment infrastructure more effectively.

Payment providers must choose the white-label mobile wallet platform that best supports their specific

needs and strategic goals. This report provides a reference guide for payment providers by profiling

the leading platforms and vendors servicing the emerging global white-label mobile wallet space.

Ovum view

The mobile wallet has for several years now been among the most hotly contested areas of payments

innovation, and is expected by many to be the long-term future of payments, with major commercial

battles forming over who will control it. The concept of the wallet continues to evolve while the market

learns from the many initial successes and failures within the mobile wallet space. As such, the mobile

wallet is now a complex service delivery mechanism combining a range of functionality far beyond

simply placing a credit card into a phone.

This has led to the emergence of the white-label mobile wallet platform, offered by an increasing

number of vendors to banks, telcos, and retailers alike. As mobile wallets are software-driven

platforms, any organization with the time and resources to spare could effectively build their own from

scratch. However, not all organizations will have these resources, and even if they do it may take

them considerable effort to gain the same functionality as existing off-the-shelf white-label platforms.

The white-label mobile wallet is aimed at providing a range of flexible and, critically, configurable

functionality to potential wallet operators tying together front- and back-end systems, or providing

outright payments infrastructure. Despite the huge interest in mobile wallets, the vendor space here is

nascent: in many instances, small-scale start-ups have more deployments than major tier-1

international technology vendors.

Ovum believes that the mobile wallet space is now entering a new phase of development, particularly

given the launch of Apple Pay but regardless of the long-term international success of this platform.

Banks and other potential wallet operators must now solidify their long-term payments roadmaps, and



the mobile wallet remains the central component in any mobile payments strategy. Mobile wallet

platforms are critical to wider payment innovation strategies, and the selection of a particular vendor’s

platform will have an impact on payment capabilities and market positioning. As the mobile payments

market hits a critical period of growth, success or failure now will have repercussions in the longer

term.

Key findings � There is still everything to play for in the wallet space. Even small-scale wallet vendors are, in

many instances, having a bigger impact on the market than global tier-1 technology providers.

� The mobile wallet market has been hindered by conflicting business models and lack of buy-in

from many payment providers. However, the market is now poised for major growth, due to

Apple Pay and tokenization and host-card emulation (HCE) technologies.

� The mobile wallet platform space is still at an early stage of development, and as of yet there

is no clear market leader in terms of market impact, technology, or execution capability.

� All of the key mobile wallet platforms on the market place a strong focus on flexible, modular

service-oriented architecture (SOA) with an emphasis on future-proofing functionality and

remaining agnostic in relation to authentication methods.

� Implementation methods do not yet have a clear best-practice model for the banking space,

and the market is seeing the development of on-site, hosted, and payments-as-a-service

delivery models.

Defining a white-label mobile wallet platform

The mobile wallets acts as a focal point for transaction services

The concept of the mobile wallet is surprisingly difficult to define, with many payment providers using

the term with slightly different meanings. This is compounded by the often interchangeable use of the

terms “digital wallet” and “mobile wallet.” Defining these terms clearly at the outset is critical to gaining

a better understanding of these technologies.

The digital wallet is defined by Ovum as “an integrated service that allows users to complete

electronic transactions using one or more stored authentication identifiers held securely by a wallet

platform.”

The mobile wallet is a subset of the digital wallet category, and it refers to a digital wallet service that

has been optimized for a mobile device, typically through the use of dedicated software such as an

app. Aside from this, mobile and digital wallets remain broadly similar, with most of the same core

capabilities. The mobile wallet, however, benefits from its ability to make use of the location-based

services on mobile devices, so it is typically capable of offering a significant array of value-added

services alongside the central payment functionality.

The concept of the digital wallet has been evolving over several years, and wallet offerings have

progressed greatly from their earliest online iterations. Since then, however, the concept of the digital

and now mobile wallet has changed in line with broader technological capabilities, with many

stakeholders defining wallets in different ways as the functionalities and types of provider on offer



expand. The lack of agreement in the market on what exactly is a digital wallet underlines the

market’s nascent nature.

For consumers, wallets store credentials for multiple uses

On a consumer level, a digital wallet serves as a container for a variety of credentials and identifiers,

providing a variety of functions and services. This is increasingly being done on a cloud-driven basis.

This can include web-based services, where payment credentials are stored and then managed for

transactions using usernames and passwords, as typified by PayPal. A mobile wallet in particular also

includes the use of dedicated applications and, increasingly, hardware, to provide a broader range of

services and ensure that transactions are secure, for example through the use of a secure element

(SE).

A wallet platform includes capabilities to manage account details and receive messages from wallet

providers, merchants, and advertisers. The earliest iterations of the mobile wallet were focused on

simply imitating a payment card stored within a device, but mobile wallets are increasingly emerging

as full mobile-commerce platforms in their own right, with payments just one function among many.

Furthermore, the market is now seeing the emergence of wallet platforms that enable payment

functionalities in other applications through the use of APIs.

For enterprises, wallets combine back-end services into one consumer-facing

platform

From a wallet-provider perspective, a wallet serves a similar function, in that it acts as a focal point for

a variety of back-end services and transaction processes in a single consumer-facing interface. This

increasingly includes the ability of stakeholders to collect various data types from the wallet, such as

transaction histories, social media, and location data, and use that to feed offers and services back

into the wallet platform. For large vendors with a wide portfolio of services, a wallet platform can act

as a wraparound for a broad array of their existing technologies and services.

For smaller vendors, meanwhile, through a heavy focus on using modular architecture and separate

integration layers within the platform architecture, the focus is on enabling the integration of any back-

end service into the wallet platform. For some wallet platforms, this also includes direct connections to

back-office payment processing infrastructure such as payment switches, meaning that wallets can

operate using payments-as-a-service delivery models.



Figure 1: Mobile wallet platforms provide a focal point for front- and back-end services

Source: Ovum

Mobile banking remains a distinct platform category, for now

There is a significant overlap between mobile banking and mobile wallets, but although there is a

close relationship between the two, Ovum believes that there is a clear distinction. Critically, a mobile

wallet will typically plug into a financial institution’s payments engine platform, while mobile banking

will include all other aspects of consumer banking services on a mobile channel and plug into the

broader banking infrastructure. The distinction between mobile banking and mobile wallets is likely to

become increasingly blurred as banks increasingly offer payments and P2P services through mobile

banking channels, and through the inclusion of payment capabilities in other applications through the

use of APIs.



Furthermore, while mobile banking can realistically only be offered by banks and, to a lesser degree,

personal financial management (PFM) providers, mobile wallets are available from a variety of non-

deposit-holding banking institutions such as online players, telecoms firms, merchants, and third-party

providers. Nonetheless, regardless of who provides the wallet, these platforms will need to connect to

a payments engine, potentially through a partner payment processor or a financial institution.

Most banks do not have a unified mobile banking and payments strategy

Most financial institutions continue to operate in siloed, product-led divisions, with payments

constituting one aspect of the business and online banking and current accounts operating as their

own unique products and areas of the business. As a result, many banking institutions do not yet have

a unified mobile banking and mobile wallet strategy, and treat the two as wholly separate categories.

However as mobile engagement increases and consumers increasingly seek a unified, omnichannel

service, the dichotomy between mobile banking and mobile payments will likely fade amid a broader

bank-led mobile initiative. Most banks today pay lip service to enabling an omnichannel view of their

customers; if this environment ever emerges, a more unified mobile experience will be a critical

component of their customer engagement strategies.

White-label platforms are gaining ground

A mobile wallet platform is more than purely a front-layer user-interface experience: it must be able to

incorporate a range of services and functionality. Although some large-scale providers have been able

to develop their own mobile wallets on a purely bespoke basis, the last few years have seen the

emergence of white-label mobile wallet platform providers.

These providers typically offer a suite of their own in-house services tied together within a wallet

software application layer, or they provide a flexible interface in which wallet providers are able to tie

together their own infrastructure and back-end processes. However, the complexities of payments

mean that no two issuers’ infrastructure is the same, and, as such, most providers will offer a

combination of some level of back-end service and a flexible approach to integration with third-party

services.

White-label wallet platform vendors remain distinct from customer-facing services such as PayPal or

Visa Checkout. They do not provide the full wallet service direct to consumers, but instead offer a

range of software and associated services to wallet operators. As such, they are not consumer

brands, they are purely B2B service providers. As these emerging wallet platform providers develop

their platforms and learn from their growing numbers of implementations, they are increasingly able to

“templatize” their approaches.

For a provider seeking to launch its own wallet, be it on its own, as part of a consortium, or as a

widget on another wallet platform, these white-label wallet developers will become increasingly

critical: they provide a more cost-effective approach than building a platform from scratch, and they

will set the broader parameters of any wallet ecosystem.

There is ample space for start-ups

As it is such a new market, the white-label mobile wallet platform space is far from mature, and it is

characterized by both the large number of start-ups entering the space and the variety of services

being offered by larger, more established financial service players. Tellingly, even major financial



services technology vendors remain at an early stage of development, with a limited number of live

deployments compared to their usual market offerings.

There are, as yet, no dominant market players, and there is scope for smaller-scale start-ups to gain

traction. This window of opportunity is rapidly narrowing, however. Consolidation is inevitable, as

major payment incumbents seek to increase their capabilities and starts-up continue to develop new

and innovative ways of developing the mobile wallet space.

Interestingly, even seemingly competitive wallet platform vendors often have close links and work in

tandem via partnership networks or even through the use of one other’s technology. Notably, FIS has

a close relationship with startup Paydiant, employing Paydiant APIs for its consumer-facing front end.

There is no clear best practice on wallet platform delivery models

Potential wallet providers selecting a platform vendor must ensure that their chosen platform provides

a wide range of implementation options and technology support. Unlike with many other app-based

services, the sensitivities and, in many instances, regulations surrounding payment transactions flows

mean implementation options for wallet providers may be complex. As yet, there is no agreed-upon

best practice for banks and other wallet operators, regardless of the scale of their programs.

For both platform vendors and wallet operators, implementation can follow an on-premise model,

whereby the platform is owned and managed by the wallet operator; a hosted model, whereby

services are provided via cloud-based technologies; or a combination of these, including through fully

managed payments-as-a-service delivery models. Cloud-based models will often provide advantages

in terms of cost and flexibility, but there may be security and regulatory barriers to their wider use.

New technologies such as HCE and tokenization services are unlikely to settle best practice in wallet

delivery models in the near term; the environment is further muddled by additional technologies and

methods of implementation, all of which will have a direct impact on the revenue models and

profitability of any wallet program. Unsurprisingly, most wallet platforms are now reacting accordingly,

and either already offer these technologies or include them in their payments roadmaps.

Potential wallet operators are now forming their strategies

The decision about whether or not a potential provider should enter the mobile wallet market is not a

simple one, and depends wholly on the context, capabilities, and long-term strategic goals of the

institution in question. However, the long-awaited announcement of Apple Pay in 2014 has impelled

the market to act, driving decision-making on if, when, and how to enter the wallet space.

Although not all banks and financial institutions need to work with a third-party provider, it is critical

that they gain an understanding of the market and their strategic options now, to help develop their

roadmap strategy in the longer term. For a bank or payment provider, this decision-making includes

whether they launch their own branded platform or partner with another provider.

A mobile wallet is not necessarily a financial-institution-led service, and indeed most services in the

market today have been launched by other types of players. The primary potential providers of a

mobile wallet today include:

� financial institutions including payment schemes and issuing banks

� telecoms companies, both at operators and device manufacturers

� merchant-led wallets, typically on a closed-loop basis



� third-party providers including major consumer technology providers such as Apple and

Google, start-ups, and specialists such as loyalty providers.

Potential providers are faced with three distinct operating models

Potential providers of a mobile wallet are faced with three key strategies in operating a mobile wallet

service: they can go it alone, join a coalition, or partake in another provider’s wallet. For all three of

these operational models, providers can either build their own proprietary wallet software platforms or

use a white-label wallet platform provider.

In a “go it alone” operating model, a provider will create and manage its own branded wallet service

and act as the major consumer-facing brand on the service. This is only an option for midsize to large

players that have the resources to do so on an economically viable scale.

Coalition or consortium models consist of a number of players coming together to operate a wallet

service, and can include multiple players within a specific provider segment, such as telecoms or

merchants, or all varieties of providers. These coalitions can vary from simple bilateral partnerships to

larger joint ventures and industry-wide coalitions involving a variety of players. The most well-known

coalitions include the Softcard (formerly ISIS) consortium between three of the four major US

telecoms operators and the upcoming merchant-led coalition CurrentC (formerly MCX).

The third operating model is to enable active participation in another provider’s wallet. This can

involve the development of a specific widget or app for use in another wallet, or a partnership that

allows for the easier enablement and addition of payment account details or customer membership of

another provider’s wallet. This participation operating model is particularly suited to financial

institutions, which will enable their existing card accounts to be used in a variety of wallets.

Ovum notes that participation in another wallet does not negate the possibility of a wallet provider

developing its own wallet in a “go it alone” strategy. One example of active participation is Citigroup,

which partnered with Google Wallet when it first launched, allowing for easier enrollment and direct

connection to the cardholding account, while also developing its own branded wallet and participating

in Apple Pay.

Participation in other wallets is likely to grow substantially in the near term, as wallet platform

providers increasingly enable payment functionality in non-wallet apps. This means that an underlying

mobile wallet infrastructure can be deployed on a more widespread basis, allowing merchants, banks,

and so on to provide an unintermediated interface to their clients.

For several years, the biggest challenge facing mobile wallets has been the competitive race to avoid

disintermediation. However, allowing their own payment functionality to be used more widely can

cement a payment provider’s positioning within a broader commercial ecosystem while allowing

relevant stakeholders, including merchants and telcos, to maintain their customer-facing relationships.



Figure 2: Providers’ operating strategies and wallet designs are now taking shape

Source: Ovum

Horizontal or vertical wallet design has major repercussions on functionality

Once the operating strategy has been formulated, the next step is to decide on a wallet design, and

whether the platform will be a horizontal or vertical wallet. The concepts of horizontal and vertical

mobile wallets were initially conceived by industry body Mobey Forum in a series of influential white

papers. They essentially refers to whether the wallet is an open- or closed-garden ecosystem.

A horizontal or open wallet refers to a wallet that is open to third parties and allows them to develop

additional services that are made available to consumers via the wallet. The wallet provider in a

horizontal wallet will hold an ownership position in relation to the central transaction functionality and

the parameters of the wider wallet, but will leave much of its wallet ecosystem open to other parties. In

essence, the horizontal wallet operates like an app store, allowing for a broad range of services to be

developed and customized by the end user and developers of value-added services. Wallet platforms,

through their control over the wallet security keys and credentials, are then able to manage secure-

data transactions for functions such as near-field communications (NFC). The range of services

potentially on offer via a mobile wallet platform means that a horizontal wallet is better able to adapt to

market innovation.

In a vertical or closed wallet, by contrast, the wallet provider has strict control over all functionality in

the wallet and acts as the provider of all value-added services. Although third parties could, in theory,

take part in a vertical wallet, this will be through a more formalized partnership process that would be

seen in a more open-ecosystem horizontal wallet. The provider in a vertical wallet benefits from

having total control over the ecosystem and can therefore push its own value-added services.



Figure 3: A vertical wallet provides greater control but less flexibility than a horizontal wallet

Source: Ovum

The increasing rate of payments diversification and the widening potential use cases for a mobile

wallet means that vertical wallets will likely struggle to keep pace with wider market innovations.

Indeed, evidence from the major wallet initiatives launched to date suggests that neither consumers

nor merchants have taken well to vertical-wallet approaches as they have proved lacking in

functionality and difficult to extend. Payments on their own are not enough of a draw to drive mobile

wallet usage; creating a broad ecosystem of functionality, services, and compatibility increasingly

looks like the surer path to success.

The mobile wallet market has been hindered by business model issues

Although it has long been gestating, the mobile wallet market has so far struggled to gain mass

acceptance outside key platforms such as PayPal’s mobile-app-based solutions and merchant-

specific offerings such as the Starbucks wallet. Much of the challenge in expanding the wallet market

has been in forming a coherent business model for the mobile wallet and indeed for broader mobile

payments, in light of the various stakeholders and competitors vying to gain a foothold in the market.

These business model challenges have been exacerbated by unclear technology specifications

adding to the confusion in the market, particularly for proximity payments using NFC. NFC for

payment usage requires an SE component to be stored, somehow, within the mobile device. The SE

could be stored either directly in the device, on the universal integrated circuit card (UICC) SIM, or on

a removable storage device such as a micro SD.



In any model, maintaining the SE as a separate element meant that the payment credentials were

held outside the handset’s operating system, greatly increasing security. This meant that NFC-based

transactions could be processed as a card present (CP) transaction. However, the positioning of the

SE in the device was a major point of contention, because the owner of the SE held sway over the

rest of the wallet model, as it essentially acted as the gatekeeper of NFC-based services on the

wallet.

Inevitably, this led to much rapid development by potential key players eager to develop a dominant

position in the mobile wallet space. In particular, the telecoms operators pushed for SIM-based SE, as

renting out space on the SE to third parties would generate revenue for them.

Notably, and in a move watched by payment providers globally, the US market saw a standoff

between emerging wallet providers in the form of Google Wallet and the major telecoms operators

under the Isis consortium. Although first launched as an NFC-based mobile wallet in 2011, Google

Wallet was blocked from all NFC-capable handsets on the networks of Isis members while they

developed their own wallet platform.

These struggles over NFC and wider mobile wallet models have caused most banks to take a wait-

and-see approach to the mobile wallet space before launching their own or taking part in any broader

mobile wallet initiatives. However, with the development of both HCE and tokenization technologies,

banks are now being forced to take a position and form their wallet roadmaps for the longer term.

HCE and tokenization are galvanizing the payments market

In 2013, Google announced that it was officially supporting HCE in the latest version of its Android

operating system. HCE technology allows mobile wallet platforms to bypass the device-specific SE

and store credentials in the cloud instead. A standard SE model replicates a smart card through

hardware installed on the device. HCE, by contrast, is able to emulate a smart card through cloud-

based software protocols. This meant that for the first time, mobile wallet providers were capable of

launching full NFC services without the need for telco involvement. Since the official support from

Google, HCE has been fully endorsed by Visa and MasterCard, and interest in the technology has

soared.

The launch of Apple Pay in 2014 marked a major milestone for the mobile wallet market and has

galvanized much of the payments industry to quickly reassess its long-term payments roadmaps.

Apple Pay notably makes heavy use of tokenization technology, meaning that the wallet platform itself

never gains access to secure payment credentials. This also means that Apple Pay allows for lower

transaction processing rates than many other mobile proximity payment services, as the payment is

processed as a CP transaction rather than a card not present (CNP) transaction.

Although Apple Pay’s long-term positioning will take several years to become fully clear, its use of

tokenization has piqued the interest of many in the market and, unsurprisingly, many wallet platforms

already support tokenization or plan to support it in the near term.

Further developments in wallet technologies are inevitable, making flexibility key

Alongside HCE and tokenization, other technologies, such as QR codes and hands-free payments,

have developed a strong foothold in the wallet space, while other technologies such as Bluetooth low-

energy (BLE) are expected to make a major impact in the future. QR codes are already a major

authentication method for wallets at the point of sale (POS), and are central to the Starbucks wallet,

arguably the world’s most successful wallet to date. A single winner-takes-all outcome for competing



wallet technologies looks increasingly unlikely, and the need to achieve merchant acceptance means

that it is more likely that a variety of technologies within the wallet space will continue to develop and

evolve concurrently.

Unsurprisingly, vendors in the mobile wallet platform space have adapted to these variations in

technology by developing their platforms as modular software-based frameworks that are flexible to

further development and changes. Rather than a proprietary system wholly reliant on a single

authentication or back-office technology, modern white-label wallet platforms place a strong emphasis

on future-proofing and compatibility with emerging technology trends.

As such, these platforms will help to drive growth in the overall market: as they provide flexible

frameworks on which wallet operators can develop future iterations and technologies, banks and other

potential providers will be less tied into heavy investment in any particular technology. Mobile wallet

platforms extend far beyond NFC and are increasingly agnostic in terms of the technologies they

employ. With broader payments diversification, this trend is unlikely to change.

The appetite for payments investment is big, and this will drive wallet growth

With the hype of the launch of Apple Pay, the further development of HCE technology, and the

growing ubiquity of smartphone technology in many regions, the mobile wallet market is set to see a

period of renewed growth and investment in the near term. Many providers have observed the

lessons from this first wave of development and will now be more focused on building the customer

experience in a well-designed and flexible wallet.

As highlighted in Ovum’s 2014 ICT Enterprise Insights survey of IT decision-makers in the retail

banking space, mobile channel plays are the top-priority investment areas in payments products over

the next 18 months (see Figure 4). The mobile/digital wallet space was ranked the top investment

priority by 23% respondents, the most by a fairly strong margin. Mobile proximity payments,

incorporating NFC and QR codes, were second top overall (ranked top by 17.6% of respondents).

Despite the many high-profile failures in the mobile wallet and proximity payments space, from the

likes of Google, Softcard (formerly ISIS) in the US, and numerous telco-led ventures, in most markets

banks and issuers have largely not yet made mobile wallet plays, and they remain an unknown

quantity. Apple Pay was announced after the ICT Enterprise Insights survey was conducted, but

Ovum believes that the priority levels of mobile wallets and mobile proximity payments would probably

have risen further.

The development of HCE technology and tokenization is expected to lead to a significant increase in

mobile wallet development, as the use of NFC at the POS is perceived by many as the ultimate

endpoint of mobile wallet interface development. The route to market has been notably simplified for

non-telco providers, and the global mobile wallet market is beginning to see the first launches of HCE-

enabled, NFC bank-led mobile wallets, with more expected to follow soon. As the route to

implementation for mobile wallets becomes easier, growth will increase and competition will intensify.

The lack of contactless infrastructure and, to a lesser degree, NFC-enabled handsets remains an

issue in many markets, but the simplification of the upfront costs and complex partnerships previously

required will drive rapid development of the mobile wallet space.



Figure 4: Mobile wallets were the top payments IT investment priority for banks in 2014

Source: Ovum ICT Enterprise Insights

Vendor platform selection The report gives a quantitative and qualitative representation of Ovum's view of the competitive

market environment in the white-label mobile wallet platform sector.

Inclusion criteria

Although the list of vendors here is not intended to include all possible providers, Ovum believes it is

representative of the market, and this Decision Matrix offers an in-depth analysis of the leading

vendors of white-label mobile wallet platforms for use in the global payments sector.

The early stage of development of the white-label mobile wallet platform market means that significant

numbers of players continue to enter and exit the market through a broader trend of industry

consolidation. At this early phase of market development, Ovum presents a selection of key players

with major deployments either live or in development, representing significant approaches to the

mobile wallet space.

The seven vendors and their platforms are considered in this report are listed in Table 1.

Table 1: Vendors and products included in the Ovum Decision Matrix

Vendor White-label mobile wallet platform



Accenture Accenture Mobile Wallet

FIS FIS Mobile Wallet

Mahindra Comviva mobiquity Wallet

Paydiant Paydiant mobile wallet platform

SAP SAP Mobile Platform

Sequent Open Wallet Platform

Toro Akami Wallet

Source: Ovum

Although there are a number of smaller regional players and other midsize to large players, the

vendors shown here include some of the largest platforms by market presence, alongside high-growth

players with regional coverage and a particularly strong platform offering. The decision to include a

vendor and its platform for evaluation in this report was based on the following criteria:

� The platform must be judged, in an initial assessment by Ovum analysts, as having mid- to

long-term potential.

� The platform must be applicable to financial service players and/or existing payments

providers.

� The platform must currently be available in multiple geographies, or hold a significant position

in its home geography with potential for future expansion.

� The platform must provide Ovum with sufficient information to allow an accurate assessment,

including a complete response to Ovum's request for information (RFI) document and an in-

depth briefing.

Overall assessment

Assessment scope

In this Decision Matrix, Ovum provides a summary of each vendor's white-label mobile wallet platform

capabilities based on a quantitative assessment of its influence on the global wallet market and the

quality and breadth of the functionality provided by its platform and underlying technology. Alongside

this, Ovum provides an assessment of each vendor’s execution capabilities in providing support and

resources to aid implementation.

Enterprises seeking a mobile wallet platform are advised to consider their own strategic goals as the

top priority in selecting a mobile wallet vendor, and the profiles shown here represent among the best,

but not all, of the players on the market today.

Achieving the full value of a white-label mobile wallet platform is critically dependent upon the

platform’s ability to execute a payment provider’s overall strategy. A decision to purchase a particular

platform should therefore be based on a broad array of factors, including the degree of alignment

between the platform’s functionality and underlying technology on the one hand, and an institution's

own particular business and payment functionality requirements, project scope, organization size, and

regional location on the other. As a result, Ovum's assessment should only be considered within the

context of a payment provider’s specific requirements.



Methodology

The assessment is based on the following methodology:

� Based on Ovum's initial assessment of the retail mobile wallet market globally, a number of

vendors were invited to respond to a detailed RFI that required them to provide data and

supporting documentation around three primary criteria: technology, execution, and market

impact.

� In addition to the RFI response, Ovum invited vendors to provide solution briefings. Analysis

for the three primary criteria was based on a scoring assessment exercise undertaken for a

number of sub-criteria. For each response within the RFI that aligned to the respective sub-

criteria, Ovum rated vendors on a scale of 1–10 based on a consistent set of best-practice

criteria or benchmarks defined by Ovum. We then aggregated the sub-criteria scores to

provide a score for each primary criterion.

� Weightings are used in the analysis to calculate scores for both sub-criteria and primary

criteria. The weightings are based on analysis of the typical importance of each criterion in the

selection process for mobile wallet platforms.

Ovum ratings

In this Decision Matrix, Ovum provides a summary of each vendor's mobile wallet platform capabilities

based on a quantitative assessment of its influence on the global white-label mobile wallet platform

market and the quality and breadth of the functionality provided by its platform and underlying

technology. Ovum also provides guidance for institutions looking to deploy mobile wallet platforms,

and advises whether they should shortlist, consider, or explore platforms from the vendors assessed

in this report. Ovum defines each of these recommendations based on the vendors' positions in the

market:

� Market leader: This category represents the leading platforms that we believe are worthy of a

place on most technology selection shortlists. The vendor has established a commanding

market position with a product that is widely accepted as best-of-breed.

� Market challenger: The platforms in this category have a good market positioning and the

vendors are selling and marketing the product well. The products offer competitive

functionality and good price-performance proposition, and should be considered as part of the

technology selection.

� Market follower: Platforms in this category are typically aimed at meeting the requirements of

a particular kind of customer. As a tier-1 offering, they should be explored as part of the

technology selection.

The wallet platforms presented here are not a complete compendium of all available platforms on the

market, and the selection is intended to serve as an introduction to some of the key players now

emerging. The immaturity of the wallet market, highlighted by the limited number of clients even of

global technology providers, highlights the significant scope for further expansion in the space, and all

of the players discussed in this report provide a potentially strong platform to meet most wallet needs.



Acccenture, FIS, and SAP are market leaders, for now

Looking at the market from the perspective of financial service providers or existing banking and

payment players, there are a handful of early front-runners, including Accenture, FIS, and SAP. This

is largely due to their strong abilities to execute wallet deployments in a complex financial services

environment, and their international support capabilities. Although wallet services can be operated by

a variety of potential providers, financial services institutions undoubtedly maintain the most complex

infrastructure, and as such may require greater levels of implementation support.

Ovum notes, however, that due to the immaturity of the market, the majority of players are

challengers, and competition remains fierce. Large vendors may have an initial edge with banks and

payment providers, but there is nothing to stop the numerous challengers on the market from gaining

a stronger presence in the near term. As such, Ovum recommends that all players discussed in this

report are worthy of consideration and should not be dismissed out of hand by any enterprise players.

Figure 5 shows Ovum’s assessment of the vendors analyzed.

Figure 5: The Ovum Decision Matrix for white-label mobile wallet platform vendors

Source: Ovum. NB: The chart shows a zoomed-in view of the vendors’ relative positioning

Execution capabilities are critical to the market leadership of Accenture, FIS,

and SAP

Overall, the various platforms now available within the white-label mobile wallet platform market are

positioned in close alignment. The immaturity of the market is highlighted by the fact that the overall

market impact of all the vendors surveyed is fairly evenly spread, with even small-scale startups, in

some instances, having a larger market impact than global tier-1 technology vendors.

In particular, the technology assessment score shows that these are all reliable and robust systems

offering a high degree of flexibility, predominantly based on modular SOA. The future-proofing of the



solutions for further developments is a key feature that all vendors are pursuing, understandably so

considering the relative immaturity of the broader market. Newer platforms, such as Accenture’s, in

particular, place particular emphasis on the use of APIs to allow the integration and development of

value-added services as part of a wallet program, and this flexibility will be increasingly critical over

time. However, all of the platforms surveyed here are capable of providing a robust mobile wallet

service with a full range of consumer-facing features.

One of the key distinctions between platforms is the ability to connect to a vendor’s own systems and

services, with providers such as FIS able to offer a full end-to-end range of services that tie in directly

with its wallet. Alongside this is the ease of integration with third-party systems, for both payments and

value-added services. The complexities of existing payments infrastructure vary widely by financial

institution, and closer inspection of vendors by enterprises on a case-by-case basis will help to

pinpoint a suitable vendor.

Execution abilities are higher among larger organizations such as SAP, Accenture, and FIS, which

have significantly greater resources than smaller start-ups. These capabilities are particularly crucial

for existing payment providers and financial institutions because of legacy infrastructure complexities.

This marks out these vendors as market leaders, at least for the time being.

However, even here, smaller players have in numerous instances successfully deployed platforms for

major tier-1 wallet providers, including, on occasion, the financial services space, so they should not

be dismissed out of hand by organizations of any scale. Even smaller players such as Toro have

successfully launched major national platforms for tier-1 enterprises. As market growth accelerates in

the wallet space, it remains to be seen if smaller players find their resources stretched or if they can

maintain their velocity and support market growth.

For the time being, Ovum believes it is more accurate to rate all active mobile wallet players as

market leaders or challengers. The market is so new that no vendor can be said to be a follower, and

this makes the selection of a platform particularly challenging for enterprises. In time, and as the

market matures, a clearer pattern of leaders and laggards will develop, particularly when more

deployments go live.

Primary assessment criteria

Evaluation categories

As the competitive landscape may vary significantly across the evaluation categories in this Decision

Matrix – technology, execution, and market impact – it is important to consider these categories

separately in order to develop a more complete understanding of each vendor's particular strengths

and challenges. The following section presents a vendor comparison in each category and discusses

how they vary across the sub-criteria.

Ovum notes that the scores given here reflect a vendor’s positioning against other vendors. Hence,

where averages are discussed, this reflects an average of the vendors shown here and not of the

overall market.



Market impact assessment

� Mobile wallet global market presence: An assessment of a vendor's mobile wallet installed

base within the global payments sector. The total number of deployments by region is

included in this measure, with a greater weighting for deployments in mature markets.

� Platform market growth: An assessment of new mobile wallet platform clients acquired by

the vendor in the preceding 12 months. Consideration is also given to major client

deployments that have achieved substantial growth.

� Vendor scale: An assessment of a vendor's direct presence, scale, and resources within

various geographic regions, including the level of staff that the vendor has dedicated to mobile

wallet products.

� Scale of wallet deployments: An assessment of the scale of the wallet programs being

deployed by the vendor, including the number of wallets in use and the typical monthly

transaction rates by value and volume.

� Vendor’s mobile wallet focus: An assessment of a vendor's history and activity in the

mobile wallet platform market, the relative importance of the mobile wallet sector to the

vendor's revenue stream, recent mobile wallet-related acquisitions, and the organizational

structure supporting the vendor's activities in the mobile wallet sector.

Figure 6: Vendors’ market impact assessment by sub-criteria

Source: Ovum

Although the largest organizations active in the mobile wallet space have the highest level of overall

market impact, the relative strength of even small players here, such as Toro and Sequent, highlights

the fact the wallet vendor space is still up for grabs in terms of gaining major market presence.

Overall, SAP had the highest mobile wallet presence due to its length of time in the market and

deployments in numerous emerging markets. Many of the platforms reviewed here are extremely



new, notably those of Mahindra Comviva and Accenture, and with further deployments their market

presence will expand dramatically.

Platform growth is positive for all players surveyed here. SAP has the most momentum, again largely

due to its longevity in the market and proven track record. The financial services sector is by nature a

conservative industry, and it is unsurprising that vendors with more deployments under their belt will

continue to see the most growth. However, there is scope for newer platforms to expand rapidly,

particularly where they have established a strong presence on a regional basis or with any high-profile

clients.

The scale of wallet deployments here again bears no direct relationship to the size of the vendor in

question. Once more, SAP has the highest ratings, followed by much smaller vendor Paydiant, which

has undergone several high-profile platform launches in the US. This again highlights the continued

potential for smaller specialists to gain traction in the wallet space.

Technology assessment

� Platform architecture: An assessment of a vendor's platform architecture through

examination of the platform design approach, use of SOA principles, operating

system/database dependencies, integration approach, and adoption of standards.

� Platform roadmap: An assessment of the range, innovation, and granularity of a vendor's

platform roadmap by assessing both the functional and technology developments planned for

the next 24 months.

� Core functionality: An assessment of the breadth and depth of functionality to support

mobile wallet requirements, the ability to deploy functions on a standalone basis, and

compliance with standard transaction methods such as NFC and QR codes.

� Multi-region support: An assessment of the international capabilities of a vendor's mobile

wallet platform, including the number of languages currently supported in live deployments,

support for non-Latin characters in the mobile wallet interface, and how multi-language

support is provided in the platform itself.

� Platform configuration and integration: An assessment of the flexibility,

comprehensiveness, and ease with which product, process workflows, and system features

can be defined within a platform and how easily the platform can be integrated with other

services. Achieved by examining configuration toolsets, product group capability, the degree

to which configuration is performed by business users, modeling functionality, training needs,

and typical product implementation options and timescales.

� Security and fraud: An assessment of a vendor’s approach to security and fraud detection

and prevention, incorporating both the security of the platform itself and compliance with

international standards, and any capabilities for fraud detection and prevention.



Figure 7: Vendors’ technology assessment by sub-criteria

Source: Ovum

From a technology perspective, all of the white-label mobile wallet platforms surveyed provide a solid

level of functionality. They are all focused on using future-proofed, modular SOA that is intended to

allow easy integration with third-party and back-office systems and a high degree of configuration

through the use of APIs, SDKs, and dedicated integration layers. The gap between these different

technology platforms is minimal. For potential wallet operators, this poses a particular challenge, as

there are no clear front-runners in the market yet, particularly as so many of these platforms are

relatively untested without further deployments.

Key to selecting a wallet platform, therefore, is a close inspection of delivery models and wallet

providers’ own plans for integration into their back-end systems. Some platforms, such as those of

FIS and Paydiant, remain primarily focused on the US market, due to their heavy integration directly

with regional payment switches and infrastructure through the platform itself. Other platforms, such as

those of Sequent and Toro, provide a more flexible payments-as-a-service model, providing the

mobile wallet as an infrastructure solution capable of enabling payments across functions and even

apps.

The technological gaps between these vendors will become more apparent when more platforms

have been deployed and are live in the market. However, for the time being, potential wallet operators

will need to assess their preferred deployment options early on as part of any vendor selection

process.

Execution assessment

� Vendor support capability: An assessment of a vendor's capability to directly support clients

by examining the number of support staff, level of support, and location.

� Partner network: An assessment of a vendor's partner network used to implement and

support payments clients. Assessment criteria include size and maturity of network, regional

coverage, formal partner certification and training, and the vendor's capabilities (including



breadth of service offering, geographic coverage, and presence in the mobile wallet platform

sector).

� Large-scale deployment: An assessment of a platform's proven scalability by examining the

largest current deployments and the results of benchmark testing.

� Multi-entity deployment: An assessment of a vendor's capability to support multi-entity

and/or multi-regional operation within a single platform instance, by examining current

deployments that operate in this way.

� Deployment options: An assessment of a vendor’s ability to support a range of deployment

options, including, on-site, hosted, and software-as-a-service options, rated by the variety of

options on offer and in live deployments.

� Training resources: An assessment of a vendor's capability to provide training to clients by

examining the number of dedicated training staff, their location, the range of training media

and formats used, and the range of courses offered.

Figure 8: Vendors’ execution assessment by sub-criteria

Source: Ovum

The execution capabilities of the vendors surveyed here correlate with their overall size. Large-scale

vendors such as SAP, Accenture, and FIS have the highest levels of execution capability, largely due

to their extensive in-house resources, often via separate consulting and implementation arms, and

established partner networks. However, highlighting the potential for growth in the market, high-profile

startups in the wallet space such as Paydiant and Sequent have been able to develop their own, often

impressive partner networks in a short time span.

The scale of deployments is more mixed, with even larger players significantly ahead of smaller start-

ups. Smaller players such as Toro have quickly expanded to include tier-1 players in selected

markets, suggesting that even small-scale players have the capacity for large-scale deployments, but

the sustainability of this amid wider market growth remains to be seen.



The deployment options available for potential wallet operators are more mixed, with a combination of

on-site and hosted delivery models available from most vendors. However, given the early stage of

development of many of these platforms, a number of these deployment options remain untested in

the field. Ovum notes that although nearly all vendors reported the capability to support multi-entity

deployments on a pan-regional basis, only one, SAP, had actually seen its platform used in this way.

Vendor analysis

Accenture

Background

Accenture is one of the world’s largest professional services consulting firms active in management

consulting, technology services, and outsourcing, and it was formed as an offshoot of accounting firm

Anderson Consulting in 2001. The publicly listed company reported total revenues of $30bn in the

2014 financial year, and it employed over 300,000 staff across 120 offices worldwide. With a strong

marketing presence globally, Accenture is perhaps the only household name active in the mobile

wallet platform space.

Alongside a range of activities within the financial services space, Accenture operates a dedicated

business group, Accenture Payment Services. This business unit is focused on business strategy,

technology, and operational efficiency in core payments, card payments, and digital payments, and it

includes a focus on transaction banking, compliance, risk, and operations.

Company structure

Accenture recently underwent a repositioning of its activities in the digital space. It formed its Digital

division in early 2014, which sits alongside its core Strategy, Technology, and Operations business

units. Accenture Digital was formed to integrate the firm’s digital marketing, mobility, and analytics

capabilities and offerings under one banner. Accenture Digital currently employs 28,000 staff, and the

company claims that this makes it the world’s largest provider of digital services.

Accenture’s Mobile Wallet Platform is part of the wider Accenture Mobility business unit, and it was

first launched in 2011. The capabilities of the platform have been built upon substantially since then,

both organically and through strategic investments and global alliances, particularly its alliance with

Apigee in 2014.

In 2014 Accenture also acquired part of Evopro group, which increased its industrial and embedded-

software capabilities. Other acquisitions include Acquity Group and Fjord in 2013.

Market impact assessment

Although initially launched in 2011, the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is only of average size,

judged by the number of deployments that are live and in development today. However, its clients are

primarily tier-1 firms, which is unsurprising considering the reputation and considerable clout that

Accenture maintains globally. This represents a considerable base for further market growth as major

players move to solidify their broader wallet platform strategies.

The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is a relatively small portion of Accenture’s services overall, so

the vendor scores lower than the market average for its overall wallet focus. However, given the sheer



scale of the organization, a small unit within Accenture remains substantially larger than many

competing platforms on the market today. Accenture’s renewed focus on the digital space and

formation of a digital unit highlights its broader focus on digital and mobile services, and suggests that

the Mobile Wallet platform will see continued support and development in the near term.

The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform remains predominantly aimed at tier-1 clients, and through

Accenture’s overall market stature it has rapidly developed a global presence. Although the number of

current live deployments is relatively low for a company of this scale, it is likely to increase in the near

term, and the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform will likely emerge as a major platform. It already has a

presence among major players in Europe, Latin America, and Asia, and as more providers launch

wallet services, it is likely to see further growth.

Figure 9: Accenture: market impact assessment

Source: Ovum

Technology assessment

The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is designed on a modular basis with a heavy focus on using

APIs to allow the easy integration of different functionalities between critical commerce, offers,

analytics, payment transaction systems, and so on, by employing the wallet as a service platform

using JSON, XML, WS SOAP, and RMI. Accenture’s alliance with Apigee, in particular, provides the

platform with strong application management capabilities. This heavy focus on API integration and

management means that the platform remains highly configurable by business users using open

source methodologies.

Critically, the wallet platform’s functions are grouped into independent and service-oriented modules.

This means that these functions can be easily plugged into the platform as required. This provides

scope for considerable configurability, while also allowing providers to adopt flexible deployment



strategies, which may initially focus on launching core functions before expanding capabilities through

additional value-added services.

The technology roadmap for the mobile wallet platform is strong, with further integration with

Accenture’s analytics capabilities planned via close integration with the Accenture Recommendation

Engine. This sits alongside detailed plans for further developments in the social media and targeted

offers space. Accenture is explicit in its design and marketing of the platform: it is intended to go

beyond purely payment transactions and serve as a broader mobile commerce platform.

The wallet has a high level of functionality and supports all of the standard wallet features, such as

NFC, QR codes, card vaulting, and couponing. From a business-user perspective, the wallet also

provides a potentially very high level of functionality through its integration with other Accenture

services and offerings, including the Accenture Customer Insight business intelligence solution.

Through its modular design, the wallet platform can also be integrated with other third-party and in-

house systems and services.

Although no multi-region deployments have yet gone live, the platform supports non-Latin character

sets, and it currently operates in a number of international markets. It also has multi-currency and

regulation configuration capabilities that can be enabled on a deployment-by-deployment basis.

The platform’s security and fraud detection and prevention capabilities are robust, and they include

integration with hardware security modules and the use of encryption protocols. However, the platform

scores slightly lower than competing offerings due to the fact that it is undergoing Payment Card

Industry Data Security Standards (PCI-DSS) certification, meaning that in existing deployments, card

data has been hosted by another party. Once certified, the platform will be in line with the majority of

the market in this area.

Figure 10: Accenture: technology assessment

Source: Ovum



Execution assessment

Unsurprisingly, given Accenture’s overall size and available resources, the company has a high level

of execution capabilities, and it offers a level of support that is among the highest in the market.

Although Accenture offers relatively little dedicated wallet support, it is able to draw upon its extensive

resources within the organization, and it operates second-line support centers in Italy and the

Philippines. Training for the platform is provided as part of the organization’s deployment and

transition services.

Accenture’s partner network is extensive, and it includes a variety of mobility partners including SAP,

Oracle, Cisco, Salesforce, Apple, and Samsung. In particular, its strategic partnerships with mobility-

specific software providers Crittercism and Kony and its alliance with Apigee have provided additional

capabilities in API and platform management.

Deployment options for the platform are also flexible: the platform is available both on-site and on a

hosted basis, with various configuration options available depending on local circumstances and

regulations. There are currently no live multi-entity deployments on the market covering multiple

regions and entities simultaneously, but the platform has the most extensive design and resource

capabilities to support these sorts of deployments.

Figure 11: Accenture: execution assessment

Source: Ovum

Recommendation: Accenture is a market leader

The capabilities of the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform are among the most extensive in the market

today, from both a technology and execution perspective, and its market impact is likely to expand

considerably in the near term. Despite being a relatively new platform, its capabilities and likely future

market impact highlight it as a market leader.



Critical to this is its focus on highly modular architecture, allowing for plug-and-play functionality

across a range of expanding capabilities. Its focus on API integration and management, via Apigee,

highlights a forward-thinking approach that will enable easy integration and configuration with wallet

providers’ broader infrastructure.

The Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is particularly strong when used in conjunction with other

Accenture services and platforms, notably its recommendation engine, and as part of a broader suite

of Accenture technologies and services. All of these functionalities come at a price, however, and the

Accenture Mobile Wallet platform is not particularly suited to smaller-scale wallet providers where

requirements may be more limited and budgets may be smaller. The strong technology and execution

capabilities underpinning the Accenture Mobile Wallet platform mean it should definitely be

considered by tier-1 wallet providers capable of launching a broader wallet ecosystem.

Appendix 1

Vendor scores

Table 2: Market impact scores

Sub-criteria Mobile wallet market

presence

Platform market growth

Vendor scale Scale of wallet deployments

Wallet focus Overall market impact score

Accenture 4.4 6.0 8.0 5.6 4.4 5.2

FIS 4.5 5.3 7.2 5.9 4.1 5.4

Mahindra Comviva

3.6 4.7 6.2 3.8 4.8 4.6

Paydiant 5.2 5.6 5.2 6.4 7.6 6.0

SAP 6.9 7.1 7.6 8.9 4.3 6.9

Sequent 4.5 6.1 5.4 5.5 7.5 5.8

Toro 4.1 4.4 4.9 4.4 7.0 4.5

Source: Ovum

Table 3: Technology scores

Sub-criteria Platform architecture

Platform roadmap

Functionality Multi-region support

Platform configuration

and integration

Security and fraud

Overall technology assessment

score

Accenture 8.4 8.0 5.1 6.5 6.0 6.6 6.4

FIS 7.7 6.0 4.6 4.3 6.1 8.0 5.6

Mahindra Comviva

7.4 6.0 4.4 5.1 5.5 8.3 5.5

Paydiant 8.1 7.5 4.5 4.2 5.7 7.7 5.3

SAP 6.6 6.0 4.6 8.2 5.6 6.6 4.9

Sequent 8.1 7.0 5.0 4.3 6.0 7.1 6.0

Toro 8.2 6.5 4.1 4.7 6.7 6.7 5.9

Source: Ovum



Table 4: Execution scores

Sub-criteria Vendor support

capability

Partner network

Large-scale deployment

Multi-entity deployment

Deployment options

Training resources

Overall execution

assessment score

Accenture 8.3 7.6 5.5 5.1 7.6 9.5 6.7

FIS 7.1 7.8 5.5 5.6 7.1 8.2 6.6

Mahindra Comviva

5.8 6.0 6.0 4.5 6.4 7.8 5.6

Paydiant 4.8 8.4 6.0 3.8 6.1 7.2 5.9

SAP 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.3 6.4 8.3 8.3

Sequent 6.4 7.5 5.0 3.6 6.4 6.7 5.7

Toro 4.0 6.4 4.0 3.1 7.0 5.4 4.9

Source: Ovum

Appendix 2

Further reading

Loyalty and Location Based Payment Services, IT0003-000614 (July 2014)

Assessing the Long-Term impact of mPOS on the Payments Market, IT003-000604 (February 2014)

Ovum Decision Matrix: Selecting and Electronic Retail Payment Switch Platform, IT003-000602

(January 2014)

The Strategic Implications of Mobile on the Payments Market, IT003-000574 (September 2013)

On the Radar: Vocalink, IT003-000606 (February 2014)

On the Radar: Braintree, IT0003-000622 (September 2014)

Author

Gilles Ubaghs, Senior Analyst, Financial Services Technology

[email protected]

Ovum Consulting

We hope that this analysis will help you make informed and imaginative business decisions. If you

have further requirements, Ovum’s consulting team may be able to help you. For more information

about Ovum’s consulting capabilities, please contact us directly at [email protected].

Copyright notice and disclaimer

The contents of this product are protected by international copyright laws, database rights and other

intellectual property rights. The owner of these rights is Informa Telecoms and Media Limited, our

affiliates or other third party licensors. All product and company names and logos contained within or

appearing on this product are the trademarks, service marks or trading names of their respective



owners, including Informa Telecoms and Media Limited. This product may not be copied, reproduced,

distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of Informa

Telecoms and Media Limited.

Whilst reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the information and content of this product

was correct as at the date of first publication, neither Informa Telecoms and Media Limited nor any

person engaged or employed by Informa Telecoms and Media Limited accepts any liability for any

errors, omissions or other inaccuracies. Readers should independently verify any facts and figures as

no liability can be accepted in this regard – readers assume full responsibility and risk accordingly for

their use of such information and content.

Any views and/or opinions expressed in this product by individual authors or contributors are their

personal views and/or opinions and do not necessarily reflect the views and/or opinions of Informa

Telecoms and Media Limited.

CONTACT US

www.ovum.com

[email protected]

INTERNATIONAL OFFICES

Beijing

Dubai

Hong Kong

Hyderabad

Johannesburg

London

Melbourne

New York

San Francisco

Sao Paulo

Tokyo

ovum decision matrix - selecting a white-label mobile wallet .../media/accenture/...the mobile...

Documents