On a Stripe destination charge, a chargeback is debited from the platform's balance, even when the seller shipped the goods and the platform never touched them. On a direct charge, the same chargeback lands on the seller. One parameter decides who eats the loss, and most marketplace teams choose it in their first week, from a docs page that recommends it for unrelated reasons.
The pages that rank for "Stripe Connect vs Adyen" compare pricing and review scores. None puts Stripe's charge types next to Adyen's splits and Mangopay's wallets at API level, and none asks the UK question underneath: if your platform collects money for sellers, is that a regulated payment service? Field names below were checked against the docs on 21 October 2026.
Stripe Connect vs Adyen for Platforms vs Mangopay: The Short Version
All three let a platform take a buyer's payment, keep a commission and pay the seller without the platform holding client money in its own bank account.
| Stripe Connect | Adyen for Platforms | Mangopay | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Seller's funds sit in | A connected account balance | A balance account per account holder | An e-money wallet per user |
| Platform takes its cut with |
application_fee_amount or transfer_data[amount]
|
A split with type Commission
|
Fees on a wallet-to-wallet transfer |
| One payment, several sellers | Separate charges and transfers | Several BalanceAccount splits |
One transfer per seller wallet |
| Losses by default | Depend on charge type and controller.losses.payments
|
The platform's liable balance account | Not stated; your fee is reversed on chargeback |
| Documented cap on holding seller funds (UK) | 90 days on manual payouts | 20 business days of settlementDelayDays
|
None; payouts gated by KYC level |
Stripe makes you choose a charge type, Adyen wants a split instruction, and Mangopay hands you wallets. Each moves liability somewhere specific.
Does a Marketplace Need FCA Authorisation in the UK?
The law shapes the architecture. The Payment Services Regulations 2017 exclude payments made through a commercial agent (Schedule 1, Part 2, paragraph 2(b)), but only an agent authorised by agreement to negotiate or conclude the sale "on behalf of either the payer or the payee but not both".
The FCA reads that narrowly. PERG 15.5 Q33A describes the platform that acts for both sides: it takes the buyer's money into an account it controls, that payment does not settle the buyer's debt to the seller, and the platform then pays the seller under its own agreement with the seller. The authority must be real, meaning the ability to bind the principal; supplying the technical means for placing orders does not count. Escrow-style platforms are flagged as likely to need authorisation.
Read the full article on tomcn.uk →
About the Author
I'm Tom Wang, an AI Developer & Fintech Developer — building AI agents, crypto payment infrastructure, and cross-border payout systems with Rust, Go, and TypeScript. Based in London, UK.
Currently open to new opportunities in fintech, crypto payments, and AI agent engineering.
