The state of local payments in 2026
Local payment methods now account for over 75% of global ecommerce transactions. That 75% is concentrated in 15-20 methods across 10 markets. The long tail of “we support 200 payment methods” is mostly noise. Here's the signal:
- Polish ecommerce: 70% BLIK transaction share
- BLIK A/B test: +46% conversion uplift (Stripe)
- NL approval uplift: 8-12pp with iDEAL offered
- BNPL users: 670M projected by 2028
Just to make things even more complex Wero has recently been on a buying spree snapping up lots of these localised payment methods.
The problem with treating local payments as a checklist
Most merchants we work with can recite the same list. iDEAL for the Netherlands. BLIK for Poland. Klarna for the Nordics. Pix for Brazil. Bancontact for Belgium. Pay by Bank for the UK. A few will throw in OXXO for Mexico and Konbini for Japan if they’re feeling thorough.
The issue: most of those methods are listed by their acquirer’s sales deck, not by data on what actually moves revenue. The gap between “we have it on the checkout page” and “we have it integrated in a way customers choose it” is where most merchants quietly lose 20-40% of would-be conversions in those markets.
We work with mid-market and enterprise merchants every week who think they’ve covered the local payments brief. Some have. Most haven’t, and the ones who have usually don’t know which methods are working and which are dead weight in their checkout. That’s what this article is for.
The 75% stat, and what it actually means
You’ll see it everywhere: “local payment methods now account for over 75% of global ecommerce transactions.” That’s broadly true, and it gets used by every processor to justify selling you 40 different integrations.
The bit that matters: that 75% is concentrated in maybe 15-20 specific methods across 10 markets. The long tail of “we support 200 payment methods” includes a lot of methods that, in practice, 0.1% of your customers will ever use.
If you’re a UK retailer expanding to Germany, the question isn’t “should we support 12 local methods?” The question is: “do we support the 3 or 4 that account for 95% of the volume, in the way those customers expect to use them?”
That’s the difference between covering a market and actually selling in it.
What “moving the needle” actually looks like
We’ve reviewed checkout setups for 50+ merchants. The ones who got local payments right share three things:
- They picked 2-4 methods per market, not 12. Focused on the dominant rails, not the long tail.
- They put those methods first in the payment selector. Not buried under “Other payment options” or hidden behind card as default.
- They treated the integration like a product, not a compliance task, local-language error messages, mobile-first flows, real-time confirmation, refund parity.
When all three are in place, the conversion uplift is substantial. When one or more is missing, the method is effectively a checkbox: present but not pulling weight.
The methods that actually move the needle (and the data)
We’re going to focus on the methods where the data is unambiguous. These are the ones where the local preference is so strong that not having them is leaving measurable money on the table.
iDEAL, Netherlands (and the Wero transition)
iDEAL has been the default online payment method in the Netherlands for nearly two decades. It processes the majority of Dutch ecommerce transactions. For a Dutch consumer, the iDEAL button at checkout is the equivalent of a UK consumer seeing a familiar bank login. Not having it is a meaningful reason to abandon.
The numbers are consistent across our clients: Dutch approval rates for new customer checkouts are typically 8-12 percentage points higher when iDEAL is offered, and existing customer repeat rates climb measurably.
The thing most people don’t know: iDEAL is transitioning to “iDEAL | Wero” in 2026, as part of the European Payments Initiative. The Dutch banks (ABN AMRO, ING, Rabobank) are rolling out a phased migration that will eventually become a pan-European wallet. If your integration is via a processor that handles the upgrade, this is a non-event. If your integration is direct or via an older PSP, you may need a re-integration in the next 12-18 months. Worth checking.
BLIK, Poland
The most dramatic story in the European local payments landscape. BLIK now accounts for roughly 70% of all ecommerce transactions in Poland by volume, according to data from Narodowy Bank Polski. Polish consumers use it for everything from £5 impulse buys to £500 big-ticket items. Stripe’s own A/B testing, summarised by Global Payments, showed a 46% increase in conversion for merchants adding BLIK.
For context: if you’re a UK or German merchant expanding to Poland and you only offer card payments, you are functionally invisible. Polish consumers don’t reach for a card at checkout the way UK consumers do. They reach for BLIK.
The integration story is straightforward. BLIK works on a 6-digit code generated in the customer’s banking app, confirmed in real time. It’s mobile-native. It works. The processing fees are competitive with card interchange.
If you’re entering Poland and you only have time to integrate one local method, it’s BLIK.
Klarna, Nordics, Germany, Netherlands, UK, US
Klarna is the elephant in the BNPL room, and 2026 is the year the model got validated. Klarna posted its first profit since IPO in Q1 2026, after running at significant losses, according to Q1 2026 reporting. The reason that matters: BNPL as a category isn’t going anywhere, but the unsustainable BNPL providers are. The winners will be the ones that have figured out the unit economics.
For merchants, Klarna is the BNPL default in the Nordics (Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark) and increasingly important in Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. In the US, Affirm is the bigger player. In Australia, Afterpay. If you’re selling in any of these markets, BNPL is a conversion lever, not a “nice to have.”
The nuance: Klarna’s merchant fees run 4-6%, depending on volume tier and product. That’s substantially higher than card interchange. So the question is: is the conversion uplift worth the margin compression? In our experience, for the right products (mid-to-high AOV, fashion, beauty, electronics, home), yes. For low-AOV consumables, the math is tighter and Klarna may be a margin drag.
There’s a second-order benefit too. Merchants in the Klarna app get exposure to Klarna’s consumer base as they browse, so integrating Klarna doubles as a small acquisition channel. Worth knowing.
Pix, Brazil
Brazil’s instant payment system, Pix, has been the most disruptive payment launch of the decade. Launched by the Brazilian Central Bank in 2020, it now accounts for the majority of ecommerce transactions in Brazil and has effectively killed card-based ecommerce growth in the country.
If you’re expanding to Brazil, Pix is non-negotiable. Brazilian consumers expect it. Card-based checkouts feel slow and dated by comparison. The cost structure is also compelling: Pix fees are a fraction of card interchange.
The complication: Brazil has specific regulatory and tax requirements (CPF/CNPJ collection, fiscal compliance) that make the integration more complex than the European APMs. This is one where working with a partner who knows the local market saves a lot of pain.
MB Way and Bizum, Southern Europe
Less well-known outside Iberia, but conversion rates for these methods are reported at 90%+ in their home markets, according to Deutsche Bank partner data. MB Way (Portugal) and Bizum (Spain) are mobile-first, bank-integrated payment systems that are essentially the equivalent of Pix for Southern Europe. If you’re selling in Iberia and you don’t have these, you’re losing meaningfully.
The integrations are mature and supported by most major PSPs. The cost is competitive with Pix. The data on conversion is among the strongest in the European local payments landscape.
Pay by Bank and Open Banking, UK and Europe
The category that everyone in payments is watching. Account-to-account payments (A2A), powered by open banking, bypass card networks entirely. The consumer pays from their bank account, the merchant gets the funds in seconds, and the cost is dramatically lower than card interchange.
The adoption is real but uneven. In the UK, the infrastructure is mature and consumer trust is building. In Germany, the Netherlands, and the Nordics, the open banking rails are well-established. In the US, it’s still nascent.
For merchants, Pay by Bank is a cost play (lower fees) and a checkout UX play (one-click for returning customers, no card data entry). The conversion data is mixed so far. For some merchants, it underperforms cards. For others, it overperforms. The verdict is still out, but it’s the category to watch for 2026-2028.
The methods that are usually checkboxes (for most merchants)
For completeness, the methods that show up in every “we support 200 payment methods” pitch but that, for most mid-market merchants, don’t justify the integration cost:
- Sofort / Klarna Pay Now (Germany): Being absorbed into the broader Klarna ecosystem. Still relevant but increasingly part of the Klarna play.
- Giropay (Germany): Declining. SEPA instant is the successor.
- EPS (Austria): Necessary if Austria is a market, but a small market.
- Multibanco (Portugal): Niche, declining. MB Way is the play.
- OXXO / Konbini (Mexico / Japan): Cash voucher systems. Only relevant with meaningful volume in those specific markets.
- Crypto payment processors (Global): Still a tiny share of ecommerce. Not a needle-mover for 95% of merchants.
The point isn’t that these are bad. The point is that the integration cost is the same whether a method moves 5% of your volume or 0.5%. Focus engineering and operational attention on the methods that earn it.
How to decide which local methods are worth integrating
We use a four-question framework with our clients. Run your current setup through it before your next integration sprint.
1. What share of the market does the method actually have?
Not what the PSP says. What the data says. Check central bank reports, the method operator’s own data, and what your competitors in that market offer.
2. What’s the conversion uplift for similar merchants in your vertical?
If you’re a fashion retailer, BNPL matters. If you’re a B2B SaaS, it doesn’t. Don’t copy the local methods list of a different vertical.
3. What’s the integration and ongoing maintenance cost?
Some methods are “turn on and forget” via your PSP. Others require dedicated engineering, ongoing reconciliation, and local entity setup. Price the full lifecycle, not just the launch.
4. Can you operate it properly, or is it a checkbox?
This is the question that separates merchants who move the needle from merchants who think they’ve checked the box. If you can’t offer the method with local-language error messages, mobile-first UX, and reliable settlement, don’t add it. Customers will choose it once, have a bad experience, and never come back.
If you’ve scored badly on question 4 for more than one method, that’s the place to start the fix.
The bottom line
Local payment methods are not a uniform category. Some are market-defining (BLIK, Pix, iDEAL, Klarna in its core markets). Some are declining or being absorbed (Giropay, Sofort as standalone). Some are technical infrastructure plays that may matter in 2 years but not today (Pay by Bank in most markets).
The mistake most merchants make is treating them as a list. The list is easy. The hard part, and the part that actually moves revenue, is picking the right 2-4 methods per market, integrating them properly, and putting them where customers can find them.
That’s the work. We do it for a living.
