Qvalia vs Inexchange Peppol platform comparison
Choosing the right Peppol platform is essential for scalable, efficient, and compliant electronic invoicing and business messaging. While both Qvalia and Inexchange support Peppol-based exchange, they differ in platform scope, API maturity, onboarding approach, pricing transparency, and operational model.
This comparison outlines the key differences between Qvalia and Inexchange, based on publicly available documentation and vendor positioning, to help you assess which solution best fits your technical requirements and business context.
| Capability | Qvalia | Inexchange |
| Positioning | Complete infrastructure with advanced data management | Nordic operator |
| Peppol Access Point | Yes | Yes |
| Supported Peppol documents (clearly stated) | Invoices, credit notes, ordering, catalogue, despatch, responses (full BIS scope) | Invoices and credit notes |
| Public API documentation | Yes, publicly available and developer-oriented | Public information available, API details not openly documented |
| API maturity | Advanced (API-first, self-service, multi-layer) | Basic (operator-led integrations) |
| Web application | Yes, full-featured web application for creating, sending, receiving, and managing invoices, orders, and other business messages | Available, typically enterprise-focused |
| B2B/B2G/G2G | Yes | Yes |
| SMP/Peppol ID management | Integrated SMP, API-driven Peppol ID management | Supported, limited information |
| Conversion (format transformation) | PDF→XML, XML→Peppol, structured normalization | Limited / invoice-focused |
| Validation (schema & business rules) | Full Peppol validation and compliance checks | Basic validation |
| Technical monitoring | End-to-end lifecycle, retries, error handling | Delivery status |
| Audit & compliance | Full audit trail, ISO 27001 | Limited |
| Data enrichment layer | Classification, spend, carbon data, accounting automation | Not offered |
| Access to transaction data | Full access via APIs, exports, and UI | Portal-based access |
| Scalability & volume pricing | Volume-optimized, cost-efficient | Tiered |
| Partner / platform use | Yes, API-first and white-label ready | Limited |
| Developer self-signup | Yes, online signup | No |
| Pricing transparency | Public plans | Partial |
| Support & SLA | Support included in published pricing; enterprise SLAs available | Not publicly listed. Typically contract-based, may incur additional costs |
| Time to go live | Minutes to days | Weeks |
| Onboarding experience | Self-service and assisted onboarding | Assisted onboarding |
| Customisation model | Configuration-driven via APIs | Limited configuration |
| Change management and upgrades | Continuous updates with backwards-compatible APIs | Operator-managed updates |
| Typical customers | SMBs, large enterprises, platforms, and partners | Nordic enterprises |
| Best fit | Enterprises to SMBs needing scalable, transparent, and data-rich Peppol infrastructure | Nordic invoice-centric organisations |
Comparison method and scope
This comparison is based on publicly available documentation, vendor websites, and stated product positioning at the time of writing. Capabilities described as “not publicly documented” or “not positioned as a standard capability” may still be available through enterprise agreements, custom projects, or private documentation.
Product features, certifications, and commercial terms may change over time. Buyers should verify specific requirements directly with each vendor as part of their evaluation.
Scope
This page focuses on comparing Qvalia with the vendor listed above, based on platform capabilities relevant to Peppol-based electronic business messaging. This includes areas such as APIs, onboarding, compliance, operational transparency, and typical usage models.
It does not attempt to evaluate commercial negotiations, bespoke enterprise agreements, or customer-specific implementations.
Neutrality
Both Qvalia and the vendor compared are established providers in the electronic invoicing and compliance ecosystem. The purpose of this comparison is to support informed decision-making by outlining differences in product positioning, documentation transparency, and typical use cases.
Terminology
Where terms such as “API maturity”, “not positioned”, or “limited documentation” are used on this page, they refer to the depth and accessibility of publicly available product or developer documentation. They do not imply the absence or quality of underlying technical capabilities.