Intake and Process Orchestration in Procurement (2026)

Back in May 2024, I wrote a comprehensive guide on intake and process orchestration in procurement. It was a growing topic that had burst into the mainstream. It was no longer just some upstart solutions serving a few niche customers.

This space has changed so much in the 20 months since I wrote this piece that it’s high time to give an update.

If you’re a newbie to this topic, I recommend you check out my 2024 article first. I’m not going to repeat the basics here. My assumption for this piece is that you’ve got a foundational knowledge of the topic.

OK, so what’s happened in the timespan since?

The question is no longer whether intake technology matters. The question is whether intake-to-pay platforms will replace legacy S2P suites entirely, or whether these categories will coexist in an uneasy truce.

Again, I wrote something exploring this at the end of 2024, and the landscape has shifted since then.

Some of my predictions are certainly playing out.

This article examines the 2026 procurement software landscape for intake-to-pay, process orchestration, and looks at traditional source-to-pay suites too.
It also touches on how customers at the lower end of the market are increasingly becoming priced out for these solutions.

Let’s dive in.

Understanding the Three Categories in 2026

What is Intake-to-Pay?

Intake-to-pay software manages the complete procurement lifecycle from initial request through to final payment.

These platforms start with intake modules where users describe needs in plain language. The system routes requests, suggests preferred suppliers, links to catalogues, and prevents maverick spending. The critical difference from earlier intake tools is that these cover complete downstream functionality. We’re talking purchase orders, invoice processing, and payment.

Leading vendors include Zip (500+ customers, strong enterprise penetration), ConvergentIS, and Pivot, with Precoro catering more to the mid-market. They emphasise consumer-grade user experience and no-code workflow builders.

What is Process Orchestration (without payment capability)?

Process orchestration platforms sit above existing systems as a coordination layer. They connect disparate systems and create seamless workflows across departments without replacing current technology.

These can include mini-suites such as FocalPoint, Omnea, ORO Labs, and Levelpath. But they also include solutions like Opstream and Tonkean, who offer no code workflow builders that cross over into different areas of enterprise operations like IT and Legal. All of them excel at integration and meet users where they typically work (Slack, MS Teams, email). The crucial limitation is they typically don’t handle downstream payment processes.

Traditional Source-to-Pay Suites

SAP Ariba, Coupa, Ivalua, GEP Smart, and JAGGAER offer comprehensive coverage from strategic sourcing through payment. They provide deep functionality, extensive supplier networks, and strong ERP integration.

But implementations take months or years. They’re only really suitable for large enterprises, due to the complexity. User interfaces feel dated. Customisation requires extensive IT resources. Their marketplace strategies aim to offer best-of-breed connections while maintaining ecosystem control.

These platforms also offer strategic sourcing capability that intake and process orchestration tools generally don’t. Although these days, you’re almost certainly better off going best-of-breed for e-sourcing. This way, you get AI-native functionality and consumer grade UX.

The Intake-to-Pay Revolution: A Direct Threat to S2P Suites

Why Intake-to-Pay Now Competes Head-to-Head

Intake-to-pay vendors crossed a critical threshold in 2025.

They’re no longer just providing a pretty front-end for legacy systems. They offer complete functional coverage from request to payment. This transforms them from complementary tools into direct S2P competitors.

The shift happened quietly. Intake solutions added procure-to-pay modules. They created payment workflows. Suddenly, they covered the entire lifecycle.

More importantly, companies started replacing S2P suites entirely. Not just in greenfield implementations. Established enterprises with legacy systems began ripping out Ariba or Coupa in favour of intake-to-pay platforms.

This wasn’t supposed to happen. Industry analysts predicted intake tools would remain niche players. Instead, they’ve become genuine alternatives.

Where Intake-to-Pay Wins Against Traditional S2P

Intake-to-pay platforms dominate in specific scenarios.

Greenfield implementations remain their strongest territory. Companies building procurement functions from scratch choose intake-to-pay overwhelmingly. No legacy systems mean no migration headaches. Modern architecture beats retrofitted functionality every time.

But the real surprise is enterprise adoption. Large organizations frustrated with legacy user experience are switching. Procurement teams tired of clunky interfaces and months-long customization projects are voting with their budgets. Mature procurement functions recognise that stakeholder adoption depends on interface quality. When end users bypass procurement processes, even the most sophisticated S2P suite fails.

High-growth tech companies scaling fast tend to favour intake-to-pay solutions. They need fast implementation and flexible workflows. Traditional S2P implementations can’t keep pace with aggressive growth timelines.

Implementation speed creates competitive advantage. Intake-to-pay platforms deploy in 2-3 months, not over a year. Time-to-value improves dramatically. ROI calculations become more favourable when benefits start flowing immediately.

Modern architecture enables faster innovation cycles. AI-native platforms outpace retrofitted AI in legacy systems. When vendors can ship new features much more quickly, the gap increasingly widens.

Compliance becomes effortless when the approved path is also the easiest path.

Where S2P Suites Still Have the Edge

Traditional S2P suites retain advantages in specific contexts.

Highly complex global enterprises in the Fortune 500 often stick with legacy platforms. Decades of embedded processes create significant switching costs. When hundreds of customizations support critical workflows, replacement becomes nearly impossible.

Deep ERP integration requirements in specific industries favour incumbents. Manufacturing companies with complex direct materials procurement rely on tight ERP integration. Pharmaceutical companies with stringent regulatory requirements need proven compliance capabilities.

Extremely complex supplier networks with legacy integrations often resist change. When thousands of suppliers connect through established protocols, migration risks multiply. The cost of re-onboarding suppliers across new platforms can be huge..

Organizations with significant customisation investment in current S2P face difficult decisions. Millions spent on custom development don’t transfer to new platforms. The sunk cost fallacy becomes reality when replacement means rebuilding everything.

Risk-averse procurement organizations unwilling to pioneer new technology choose familiar vendors. CIOs at conservative enterprises prefer vendors with decades of track records. “Nobody gets fired for buying IBM” applies equally to SAP Ariba.

Process Orchestration Tools: The Complementary Layer

Why Pure Orchestration Tools Remain Relevant

Process orchestration platforms aren’t trying to replace existing systems.

They enhance what’s already there. This fundamentally different value proposition keeps them relevant despite intake-to-pay expansion.

Working alongside existing S2P investments reduces implementation risk. No rip-and-replace projects. No massive data migrations. Just a new layer that makes everything work better together.

Lower risk matters enormously to enterprises with legacy systems. When your current platform handles billions in annual spend, you don’t gamble on unproven alternatives. Incremental improvement is often seen as being better than attempting revolutionary change.

The Value Proposition for Orchestration-Only Tools

Orchestration tools provide a user experience layer over clunky legacy systems.

Your S2P suite might handle transactions perfectly fine. But the interface frustrates users. Orchestration sits on top, providing a modern front-end while the old system churns away underneath.

Integration between best-of-breed solutions creates another use case. Companies with separate contract management, supplier management, and P2P systems need something to connect them. Orchestration platforms provide that connective tissue.

Cross-departmental workflows extending beyond procurement justify orchestration investment. When legal, finance, IT, and procurement all touch the same processes, you need coordination. Orchestration platforms excel at this multi-departmental choreography.

Slack and MS Teams integrations mean stakeholders never leave their preferred tools. Orchestration brings procurement to them rather than dragging them into procurement software.

When to Choose Orchestration Over Intake-to-Pay

Several scenarios favour orchestration over choosing an intake-to-pay platform.

Already invested in S2P suite with acceptable invoice-to-pay functionality? Keep it. Modern intake workflows pair beautifully with proven payment processes. Orchestration makes sense. Finance teams often control payment systems and don’t want to give up that control.

Orchestration respects existing ownership while improving upstream UX. You get to keep downstream P2P processes but modernize upstream intake and approvals. This hybrid approach addresses user experience problems without touching well-functioning payment infrastructure.

S2P contractual commitments perhaps also make replacement cost-prohibitive. Three years left on a Coupa contract? Orchestration provides value immediately without waiting for contract expiry.

When you’ve got supplier quality systems, ESG platforms, and procurement software all needing to communicate, orchestration solves real problems.

Need for departmental collaboration beyond procurement justifies orchestration investment. Legal intake, IT requests, and procurement all flowing through the same system creates efficiency. Pure procurement solutions can’t deliver this cross-functional value.

ERP integration for payments is perhaps already optimised and reliable. If it works, don’t break it. Layer orchestration on top to improve user experience, without touching payment infrastructure.

The Convergence: How Categories Are Blurring

Legacy vendors finally acknowledge the intake gap.

Acquisitions and product development efforts target upstream user experience. Coupa, SAP Ariba, and many of their smaller competitors all launched intake initiatives in 2025.

However, challenges of retrofitting versus built-for-purpose design remain. Adding intake to a 20-year-old platform requires compromises. Modern intake-to-pay vendors designed everything from scratch, AI-native, and with intake as the foundation. That architectural advantage shows in the user experience.

The legacy vendors’ marketplace strategies aim to have it both ways. Let best-of-breed intake tools connect while maintaining control of the overall ecosystem. Whether customers accept this compromise or demand native solutions will determine market evolution.

Making the Decision in 2026: A Framework

For Greenfield Implementations

The decision is straightforward for companies starting fresh.

Choose intake-to-pay.

• No legacy systems mean no migration complexity.
• Modern architecture with better UX.
• Faster implementation.

The choice is obvious.

Which vendor is the best fit depends on company size, complexity, and industry sector.

If you’re a traditional manufacturing business, you may find all of these solutions unable to handle any of your direct spend requirements.

Implementation considerations matter less with intake-to-pay than S2P suites. It rarely takes more than 2-3 months to implement these solutions. You’ll generally be able to cover this with internal resources rather than external consultants. The implementation burden shrinks dramatically compared to legacy alternatives.

For Companies with Existing S2P Suites

Assessment criteria determine whether replacement makes sense. Satisfaction levels matter most.

Happy with your current S2P suite?

• Adding orchestration improves user experience without replacement risk.

Deeply frustrated?

• Consider intake-to-pay alternatives.

Contract expiry also creates natural evaluation windows. Two years remaining on your S2P suite contract? Then start planning a replacement now. Six months in on a five-year deal? Orchestration can provide immediate value without being stuck with sub-par UX for years.

Pain points guide the decision. Identify your biggest problems before choosing solutions.

S2P suites may still be best as a foundational layer if you’re in a highly complex organisation with a lot of direct spend.

Hybrid approaches keep S2P for certain functions, i.e. invoicing and payments, while replacing others. It’s a lot easier to move SRM, contract management, and strategic sourcing out to best-of-breed solutions. This works when specific modules deliver value while others don’t.

Priced Out: What Now for SMEs and Lower Mid-Market?

The Pricing Reality

Intake-to-pay solutions increasingly target large enterprises.

Zip’s focus shifted decisively upmarket. Omnea and Opstream raised prices as they added functionality. Pivot remains more accessible but also now trends toward larger customers.

Process orchestration tools always were focused more on enterprise. ORO Labs always targeted Fortune 500. Tonkean and Levelpath followed similar trajectories.

The affordability gap for companies under $100 million revenue has widened. Solutions that cost at least $100,000 annually don’t make sense for companies with less than $50 million in procurement spend. The maths simply doesn’t work.

Here, it’s better to look at modern, agile, procure-to-pay tools that are focused on the lower end of mid-market and combining these with No Code builders for intake workflows.

The No-Code Solution

Building simple intake apps with no-code platforms provides viable alternatives.

Airtable, Softr, Notion, Zite, ClickUp and similar tools let procurement teams build custom intake workflows. No developers required. Just drag-and-drop form builders and approval routing.

Examples include using Airtable forms for purchase requests with automated approval workflows. Or Notion databases that track requisitions through procurement stages. These aren’t comprehensive solutions but they solve specific problems.

Then you’ve got custom-built automations in platforms such as Zapier, Make, and n8n.

Cost-effective alternatives to enterprise software make sense at smaller scale. Spending $5,000 annually on Airtable beats $150,000 on Zip if you’re a $50M company. The functionality gap exists but the value equation tips toward simplicity.

Complementing with AP Automation

Standalone invoice automation tools handle downstream processes.

OCR and AI-powered invoice processing now costs a fraction of comprehensive S2P suites. Integration with basic no-code intake systems creates functional end-to-end coverage. Airtable intake feeding into Bill.com payments covers the essentials. It’s not elegant but it works.

Achieving 80% of the value at 20% of the cost makes sense for smaller companies. Small or lone wolf procurement teams don’t need every feature large enterprises require. Focus on solving real problems rather than feature parity with bigger competitors.

Conclusion

The intake-to-pay revolution is real and accelerating.

These platforms now directly compete with traditional S2P suites. For greenfield implementations and frustrated enterprise users, they offer compelling alternatives. Better user experience, faster implementation, and modern architecture create genuine competitive advantages.

Process orchestration tools remain relevant by complementing rather than replacing existing systems. Companies with acceptable payment infrastructure but poor upstream user experience benefit enormously from orchestration layers.

Traditional S2P suites won’t disappear overnight. Deeply embedded implementations, complex integrations, and risk-averse cultures protect incumbent positions. But market momentum clearly favours newer alternatives.

The 2026 decision framework is clear. Greenfield implementations choose intake-to-pay. Frustrated S2P users evaluate replacements seriously. Companies with good payment infrastructure consider orchestration. And everyone demands better user experience than the legacy platforms deliver.

The procurement software landscape has fundamentally shifted. User experience determines success or failure. And the vendors who recognised these truths first are winning.