Request for Payment (RfP) is one of the most consequential capabilities available on TCH’s RTP network and the FedNow Service today, and it remains one of the most misunderstood.

This guide compares the payment platforms that genuinely support RfP on both rails, maps their capabilities to biller and financial institution use cases, and helps you move from feature checklist to shortlist decision. Platforms covered include purpose-built solutions like Alacriti‘s Orbipay, evaluated against production deployment and receivables integration as the primary criteria.

What Request for Payment Does — and Why It Matters Now

Request for Payment is a structured message sent over TCH’s RTP® network or the FedNow® Service that prompts a payer to explicitly approve a transfer from their account. Unlike ACH debit, which pulls funds without real-time consent, RfP puts the approval decision in the payer’s hands. The payment either happens with confirmed good funds or it doesn’t happen at all.

That distinction matters for billers. ACH returns, card chargebacks, and the contact-center volume that follows surprise debits are operational costs that RfP largely eliminates. When a utility, insurer, or lender sends an RfP through a bank’s bill-pay channel, the consumer sees a notification, approves the amount, and the funds settle in seconds. No return cycle. No chargeback. No call.

RTP® network settles approved RfP payments in under 10 seconds.

RfP is also a separate message type from basic instant payment send and receive. Supporting RTP® or FedNow® for credit pushes doesn’t automatically mean a platform supports RfP. Platforms require specific certification and message-handling logic to send and process RfP messages on either network.

Real-time payment transaction volume on the RTP network grew 38% in 2024, with value nearly doubling over the same period (The Clearing House, 2025). Interest in Request for Payment grew 8 percentage points to 22% in 2025 (Federal Reserve Financial Services, 2025), and the Federal Reserve’s FedNow Service Industry Work Group has identified consumer-to-business bill pay as the primary emerging use case for RfP (Federal Reserve Financial Services, 2023). 

How RfP Works on TCH’s RTP® Network vs. the FedNow® Service

Both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service support RfP as a distinct message type, but their implementation details differ in ways that matter for platform selection.

RTP® has supported RfP since the network launched in 2017, giving it a seven-year production track record. That longevity means more platforms have live RfP deployments on RTP® than on FedNow®, which launched in July 2023.

RTP® raised its per-transaction limit to $10 million in 2024.

The FedNow® Service uses ISO 20022 pain.013 and pain.014 message formats specifically for RfP and RfP response communications, according to the Federal Reserve Banks’ FedNow Service RfP Customer Experience Work Group. This ISO 20022 alignment creates opportunities for richer data payloads alongside RfP messages, which matters for billers managing invoice-level reconciliation.

On cost, FedNow’s pricing is concrete: $0.01 per RfP message to the requestor (RSPA, 2026). For a biller sending 500,000 RfP messages monthly, that’s $5,000. A negligible line item against the return-processing and chargeback costs those messages replace.

The practical implication for institutions and billers: platforms that support RfP on both rails give you access to the broadest payer reach. A single-rail RfP strategy means some account holders can’t participate in the workflow at all.

The Business Case for RfP: Receivables, Returns, and Non-Interest Income

RfP’s value for billers comes down to three outcomes: faster collections, fewer returns, and lower operational cost.

Good-funds-on-approval eliminates the two-to-three-day ACH return window. When a consumer approves an RfP, the biller receives confirmed funds within seconds. There’s no waiting to know whether a payment cleared, and there’s no return to process if it didn’t.

According to the 2025 AFP Digital Payments Survey, straight-through processing for accounts receivable ranked among the top benefits organizations cite for adopting digital payment methods, and 76% of organizations expect to update their payments strategy within three years (AFP, 2025). The shift from pull-based ACH to consent-driven RfP is already well underway in corporate treasury and biller operations. 

For banks and credit unions, RfP is also a non-interest income opportunity. Financial institutions that offer RfP-enabled bill pay as a service to commercial clients and billers create a fee-based revenue line that doesn’t depend on spread income.

Top Payment Platforms That Support RfP on RTP and FedNow

The platforms below support RfP in production environments on TCH’s RTP network, the FedNow Service, or both. Each entry covers strengths, segment fit, and the consideration most relevant to billers and FIs evaluating RfP capabilities.

RfP Platform Comparison: Key Capabilities at a Glance

Platform	RTP RfP Support	FedNow RfP Support	Primary Use Case
Alacriti (Orbipay Payments Hub)	Yes, production	Yes, production	FIs and billers modernizing receivables end-to-end
ACI Worldwide (Connectic)	Yes, production	Yes, production	Large enterprise billers, global banks
Fiserv (Enterprise Payments Platform)	Yes, production	Yes, production	Institutions already in the Fiserv ecosystem

1. Alacriti (Orbipay Payments Hub): RfP Plus EBPP for End-to-End Receivables

Alacriti’s Orbipay Payments Hub supports RfP in production on both TCH’s RTP network and the FedNow Service through a single, core-agnostic platform. The differentiating capability for billers is the integration between RfP and Orbipay EBPP (electronic bill presentment and payment), which means institutions can deliver RfP-enabled bill pay without building a separate integration layer between payment initiation and receivables workflows.

Alacriti reports serving 20% of U.S. credit union members through named clients including Navy Federal CU, Mountain America CU, and Patelco CU, alongside bank clients including Truist, KeyBank, and Comerica. The platform holds SOC, PCI DSS, HIPAA, NACHA, ISO 20022, and AWS Well-Architected certifications.

Because Orbipay Payments Hub is core-agnostic, institutions on Jack Henry, Fiserv, or any other core can access RfP on both rails without depending on their core provider’s roadmap.

Best for: Financial institutions and billers modernizing receivables end-to-end who need RfP on both rails integrated with EBPP and bill-pay workflows.

Ready to see Alacriti’s RfP capabilities in the context of your institution’s receivables workflow? Request a demo of Orbipay Payments Hub.

2. ACI Worldwide (Connectic): Enterprise Scale for Large Billers

ACI Worldwide’s Connectic platform is certified for RTP and FedNow across multiple functionalities, including RfP. ACI’s strengths are its enterprise footprint and the ability to handle high transaction volumes for large billers with global operations.

The consideration for community and mid-tier financial institutions: ACI’s enterprise orientation and pricing reflect its primary market. Institutions without the volume or budget to match ACI’s pricing structure may find the platform exceeds their near-term needs.

Best for: Large enterprise billers and top-tier banks seeking production-grade RfP support with broad rail coverage.

3. Fiserv (Enterprise Payments Platform): Broad Coverage for Existing Clients

Fiserv’s Enterprise Payments Platform supports RTP and FedNow and is a natural consideration for institutions already deep in the Fiserv ecosystem. The platform’s breadth covers ACH, wire, and faster payments under one vendor relationship.

The limitation relevant to this evaluation: Fiserv’s primary revenue comes from core services, and payment capabilities sit within a large multi-product portfolio. Institutions have reported implementation timelines for faster payments exceeding six months, and transaction-level reporting for faster payments has historically been delayed to the next business day rather than real-time. For billers that need RfP integrated with real-time receivables reporting, that lag matters.

Best for: Institutions already committed to the Fiserv ecosystem seeking to add faster payment capabilities within an existing vendor relationship.

What to Look for Beyond the Feature Checklist

Platform selection for RfP goes well beyond whether a vendor has checked the box on both rails. Ask specifically for live customer references on RfP message flows in production, not on general RTP® or FedNow® connectivity. A roadmap commitment and a production deployment are not the same thing.

Evaluate integration depth. Does RfP connect to existing bill-pay, EBPP, or receivables workflows, or does it require a separate integration layer your team has to build and maintain? That answer typically determines time-to-market more than rail support does.

Compliance credentials should be verifiable, not self-reported. SOC, PCI DSS, NACHA, and ISO 20022 alignment are gating factors in most FI procurement processes. Your vendor should be able to provide documentation on request.

The Dual-Rail Opportunity for Financial Institutions

Supporting RfP on both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service is a strategic reach decision. Each network has different FI participation, so a biller or institution that commits to a single rail leaves some payers outside the RfP workflow entirely.

FedNow® surpassed 900 participating financial institutions by late 2024.

U.S. real-time payment volumes are forecast to reach 12 billion transactions annually by 2028 (Juniper Research, 2024), which means the payer base reachable through RfP-enabled workflows will grow substantially over any multi-year technology investment horizon. FedNow’s $0.01-per-RfP-message cost (RSPA, 2026) means institutions can offer RfP-enabled bill pay to high-volume commercial clients at per-transaction economics that work, building a recurring, volume-based revenue line.

Choosing the Right Platform for Your RfP Use Case

Large enterprise billers with global operations and the budget to match will find ACI Worldwide’s Connectic platform well-suited. Financial institutions and billers modernizing receivables end-to-end, particularly those who want RfP integrated with EBPP and bill-pay without a separate integration project, will find Alacriti’s Orbipay Payments Hub the more efficient path. Fiserv suits institutions already committed to that ecosystem who want to add faster payment capabilities within an existing vendor relationship.

Production readiness, integration depth, and compliance posture should drive the decision. Feature announcements don’t move receivables. Deployed capabilities do.

Frequently Asked Questions About RfP on RTP and FedNow

Which payment platforms support Request for Payment on both TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service?

ACI Worldwide’s Connectic, Alacriti’s Orbipay Payments Hub, and Fiserv’s Enterprise Payments Platform all support RfP in production on both networks. The meaningful differences between them are integration depth, biller-side tooling, segment fit, and compliance posture, not rail coverage. Verify production references on RfP specifically before finalizing any vendor decision.

How does RfP reduce ACH returns and card chargebacks for billers?

RfP replaces ACH debit’s pull model with an explicit consumer approval flow. Because the payer actively approves the payment amount before funds move, there’s no surprise debit to dispute and no return window to manage. For billers with high ACH return or chargeback rates, that structural shift in how consent is captured drives measurable reductions in operational cost.

What does FedNow’s $0.01-per-RfP-message cost mean for high-volume billers?

At $0.01 per RfP message, a biller sending one million requests per month pays $10,000 to ask for payment. That cost is negligible compared to the per-item processing cost of ACH returns, which typically run $2 to $5 or more when labor and chargeback fees are included. The economics favor high-volume adoption, and the margin opportunity for FIs offering RfP as a service is equally favorable.

How do I evaluate whether a platform’s RfP support is production-ready versus roadmap-only?

Ask for live customer references on RfP message flows specifically, not general faster payment connectivity. Request production transaction data or case examples from the vendor’s existing RfP deployments. Verify the platform’s ISO 20022 pain.013 and pain.014 message-handling capability, and confirm compliance certifications are current and documentable, not self-attested.

Is FedNow the same as RTP?

No. TCH’s RTP® network and the FedNow® Service are separate instant payment networks operated by different entities. The Clearing House operates RTP®, which launched in 2017. The Federal Reserve operates the FedNow® Service, which launched in 2023. Both support RfP as a message type, but they have different participating financial institution footprints, cost structures, and message format specifications.