Resolve Pay vs Billtrust vs Hokodo: 2026 Comparison

Resolve Pay vs Billtrust vs Hokodo is a useful comparison for B2B suppliers that want to improve cash flow, offer buyer-friendly payment terms, and reduce manual accounts receivable work. These platforms are often researched together, but they do not solve the same operating problem. Resolve Pay is built for suppliers that want funded net terms, credit decisioning, invoicing, collections, and payment workflows in one connected system. Billtrust is more closely associated with enterprise invoice-to-cash software, buyer payment portals, cash application, and receivables workflow modernization. Hokodo is no longer a live vendor for new rollouts, but it remains useful historical context for teams that followed the European B2B BNPL and trade-credit category.

This guide compares the three through the lens that matters most to suppliers: who funds the receivable, who manages credit risk, how collections are handled, and how easily the workflow connects into ERP, ecommerce, and accounting systems. That distinction matters because B2B payments are still complex. The Federal Reserve has highlighted a large B2B payments market where checks and manual workflows remain part of the operating reality, while its work on electronic invoices shows why invoice and remittance modernization remains important.

For suppliers that want to offer terms without becoming the bank, Resolve Pay is the strongest fit in this comparison.

Key Takeaways

• Resolve Pay is built for funded net terms: Resolve Pay helps suppliers offer buyer-friendly terms while supporting credit decisions, invoice funding, collections, and receivables automation in one workflow.
• Billtrust is mainly an AR workflow benchmark: Billtrust is most relevant when the main project is invoice delivery, payment acceptance, buyer self-service, cash application, and receivables visibility.
• Hokodo is historical context only: Hokodo shut down in 2026, so buyers should treat it as a reference point for trade-credit design rather than an active vendor shortlist option.
• The real difference is the operating model: Suppliers should compare who owns credit risk, who manages collections, and how quickly approved invoices can turn into usable cash.
• Resolve Pay keeps terms connected to cash flow: Its supplier-first model helps businesses offer net terms while reducing the internal burden of credit, collections, and manual AR work.
• Integration depth matters for scale: Resolve Pay supports ERP, accounting, ecommerce, and API workflows so teams can keep credit, invoicing, payment, and reconciliation activity close to core systems.

How we Evaluated Resolve Pay vs Billtrust vs Hokodo

We evaluated Resolve Pay vs Billtrust vs Hokodo on five criteria: funding model, AR workflow depth, integration breadth, implementation effort, and vendor continuity. That framework matters because these products do not solve the same problem.

Funding model

The first question is whether the supplier gets paid faster on approved invoices or still carries the receivable internally. Resolve Pay is the clearest fit when funded net terms and supplier cash flow are central to the buying decision.

AR workflow depth

The second question is how each platform supports invoicing, buyer communication, payment reminders, collections, reconciliation, and reporting. Resolve Pay connects these workflows to funded terms, while Billtrust is more commonly evaluated as an invoice-to-cash workflow platform.

Integration breadth

The third question is whether the platform connects with ERP, ecommerce, accounting, and API-driven workflows. Resolve Pay supports integrations across systems such as QuickBooks Online, Xero, Sage Intacct, NetSuite, Shopify, BigCommerce, Magento 2, WooCommerce, and API workflows through its integrations capabilities.

Implementation effort

The fourth question is how much onboarding, documentation, support, and internal process change a team should expect. A supplier that wants one connected workflow for terms, credit, invoice funding, and collections may evaluate implementation differently from an enterprise finance team modernizing a larger invoice-to-cash environment.

Vendor continuity

The fifth question is whether the platform is active and suitable for new 2026 rollouts. Resolve Pay and Billtrust remain active. Hokodo does not, after The Paypers reported that Hokodo shut down after eight years.

Why Teams Look for Billtrust and Hokodo Alternatives

Teams usually start searching for Billtrust and Hokodo alternatives when the receivables problem is no longer just about sending invoices. They need a way to offer terms without becoming the bank, reduce manual AR work, and avoid pushing more payment and collections work onto the finance team. That is why this comparison keeps coming back to the operating model, not just feature lists.

When Billtrust enters the evaluation

Billtrust is often part of the conversation when finance teams want to modernize invoice delivery, buyer payment workflows, cash application, and collections visibility. A direct Resolve Pay vs Billtrust evaluation usually starts with this difference: Billtrust is an enterprise AR workflow benchmark, while Resolve Pay is more directly aligned with supplier-side funded terms, credit decisioning, and receivables automation.

That distinction is important. If the finance team already owns credit policy and wants to improve what happens after invoicing, Billtrust can be a relevant comparison point. If the supplier wants to offer terms, protect cash flow, and reduce receivables risk in one workflow, Resolve Pay is the more relevant platform category.

When Hokodo enters the evaluation

Hokodo created a different kind of urgency. It helped define the European digital trade-credit conversation, but its 2026 shutdown changed the question from “Should we buy Hokodo?” to “What active platform can support the same buyer experience, payout, collections, and integration goals?”

If your shortlist still includes Hokodo, Resolve Pay vs Hokodo is now a replacement-planning exercise. It is no longer a greenfield vendor evaluation.

At a Glance

The category itself is getting more important. The Federal Reserve described B2B payments as a very large segment of the U.S. payments industry, with transaction volume estimated at $35.8 trillion in 2024. The same Federal Reserve discussion noted that a meaningful share of B2B transaction volume still used cash and checks, which helps explain why payment modernization, electronic invoicing, and automated reconciliation remain priorities.

Those figures explain why this comparison is not only about software preference. It is about how tightly financing, checkout, invoicing, collections, and reconciliation should work together.

Main Difference

Resolve Pay focuses on funded supplier cash flow and AR automation, Billtrust focuses on enterprise receivables workflows, and Hokodo now serves only as a historical benchmark after shutdown.

Resolve Pay centers the supplier cash-flow problem

Resolve Pay starts with the supplier’s need to offer terms and support faster cash flow. It helps suppliers offer Net 30, Net 45, Net 60, or Net 90 terms depending on the workflow, while supporting buyer credit decisions, invoicing, payment reminders, collections, and reconciliation.

This makes Resolve Pay especially relevant for suppliers that want B2B payments infrastructure tied directly to working capital outcomes. Instead of treating payment terms as a disconnected finance process, Resolve Pay connects credit decisions, invoice funding, AR workflows, and buyer payment options in one platform.

Billtrust centers enterprise invoice-to-cash operations

Billtrust starts from a different place. It is most relevant for finance operations teams that want better invoice delivery, payment acceptance, buyer self-service, cash application, and collections visibility. In May 2026, Billtrust announced Buyer Payment Portal and Cash Forecast capabilities through a PR Newswire release, reinforcing its invoice-to-cash workflow focus.

Billtrust is useful as a benchmark when the goal is to improve receivables operations across a larger finance stack. It is not the same buying motion as choosing a funded net terms platform for supplier cash flow.

Hokodo is now replacement context

Hokodo historically sat closer to embedded B2B buy-now-pay-later for European merchants. It helped merchants offer trade credit and buyer-facing payment terms, but it is no longer a live procurement option. The Paypers reported that Hokodo shut down after eight years, having raised USD 177 million and financed more than USD 509 million in invoices across ten countries.

For most finance leaders, the dividing line is simple: who takes credit risk, who manages collections, and how many systems need to be stitched together after launch. If the main goal is faster supplier cash flow with terms included, Resolve Pay’s better-than-factoring approach is much closer to that outcome.

1. Resolve Pay: Funded Net Terms and AR Automation

Resolve Pay is the strongest fit in this comparison for suppliers that want to offer terms without becoming the bank. The platform is built around one operating outcome: support buyer-friendly payment terms while helping the supplier improve cash flow and reduce the internal burden of credit and collections.

Operating signals

Resolve Pay supports funded net terms, business credit workflows, invoicing, payment reminders, collections, reconciliation, and buyer payment experiences. It is positioned for suppliers that want to connect payment terms to receivables automation rather than manage separate tools for underwriting, invoice funding, collections, and bookkeeping.

Resolve Pay also has a clear product fit for companies that sell through ecommerce, ERP-connected sales motions, traditional invoicing, or hybrid B2B workflows. Its platform can support online and offline transactions, field-rep workflows, embedded checkout, and invoice-based terms.

Key features

• Buyer credit decisioning through Resolve Pay’s smart credit and underwriting workflows
• Net 30, Net 45, Net 60, and Net 90 terms depending on the product and workflow
• Upfront payment support for approved invoices
• Non-recourse cash advances, so approved seller advances are not treated like traditional recourse factoring
• AR automation for invoicing, reminders, collections, and reconciliation
• Branded buyer payment portal for ACH, wire, credit card, and check payments
• Prebuilt and API-based integrations across accounting, ERP, and ecommerce systems

Strengths

• Combines net terms financing, credit decisioning, and AR automation in one supplier-first workflow
• Supports both embedded checkout and invoice-based B2B terms motions
• Helps reduce manual receivables work by connecting credit, invoicing, collections, and reconciliation
• Gives suppliers a modern alternative to factoring by pairing non-recourse support with a buyer-friendly payment experience
• Keeps financial workflows close to ERP, accounting, ecommerce, and API systems through platform integrations

Best fit

Resolve Pay is best for distributors, manufacturers, wholesalers, and B2B ecommerce teams that want to extend terms confidently while keeping cash moving. It is especially strong when the finance team wants non-recourse support, faster access to cash on approved invoices, and ERP-connected AR automation instead of a separate trade-credit process assembled across multiple tools.

2. Billtrust

Billtrust belongs in this comparison because it solves a different but still important receivables problem. Instead of centering the buying decision on funded payout, Billtrust targets finance teams that want more control over invoice delivery, payment acceptance, buyer self-service, cash application, and collections execution across a larger order-to-cash workflow.

Operating signals

Billtrust’s 2026 product announcement focused on Buyer Payment Portal and Cash Forecast capabilities. That direction reinforces its role as an enterprise AR workflow benchmark for finance teams that want better receivables visibility, buyer payment experiences, and cash-flow forecasting signals.

Key features

• Electronic invoicing and invoice presentment workflows
• B2B payment acceptance and buyer payment workflows
• Buyer self-service through portal-style experiences
• Cash application, reporting, and receivables visibility tools
• Collections orchestration inside a broader order-to-cash environment

Operating context

Billtrust is most relevant when the initiative starts inside receivables operations rather than supplier funding. It fits organizations that already extend credit and want better invoicing, payment capture, buyer portal workflows, and collections visibility across a more traditional AR software stack.

For suppliers that want terms, credit decisions, invoice funding, collections, and reconciliation in one connected motion, Resolve Pay remains the more direct fit.

3. Hokodo

Hokodo still matters in this article because it helped define the European B2B buy-now-pay-later and digital trade-credit conversation. Public coverage positioned it as a platform where merchants could offer trade credit and buyer-facing payment terms across commerce flows.

Operating signals

The operational reality in 2026 is different. The Paypers reported that Hokodo shut down after eight years. The same report said the company had financed more than USD 509 million in invoices across ten countries and raised roughly USD 177 million across equity and debt.

That scale explains why Hokodo still shows up in searches and comparisons even though it is no longer a live deployment option.

Key features

• Historically supported embedded B2B trade-credit and BNPL workflows
• Merchant- and marketplace-oriented deployment model
• Buyer-facing checkout experiences designed for digital trade credit
• Historical relevance for European trade-credit programs

Historical context

Hokodo is useful for historical benchmarking only. It helps teams clarify what they want from an embedded trade-credit program, but it is not a live destination for new 2026 rollouts after its shutdown.

Teams still framing the choice as Billtrust vs Hokodo should treat the practical difference in 2026 as active receivables software versus replacement planning. For suppliers that want an active platform for funded terms, credit workflows, collections, and receivables automation, Resolve Pay is the more practical evaluation path.

Is Hokodo Still Operating in 2026?

No. Hokodo shut down in 2026, so buyers should treat it as a replacement rather than an active vendor.

What this means for buyers

• Hokodo is not a live option for new deployments or fresh procurement cycles.
• Its historical model still matters if your team wants embedded trade credit, merchant-first checkout, or provider-managed collections.
• Replacement planning should focus on payout timing, credit-risk ownership, geographic coverage, and ERP or checkout integration depth.
• Buyers should separate “we liked Hokodo’s model” from “we can still buy Hokodo,” because those are no longer the same question in 2026.

Features

This is where the comparison becomes clearer. Resolve Pay helps a supplier offer terms and still improve cash timing. Billtrust helps a finance team run a larger invoice-to-cash operation more efficiently. Hokodo helps buyers understand what a European embedded trade-credit model looked like before the vendor exited the market.

Read the table as an operating-model check before you read it as a feature grid. That framing keeps payout, workflow depth, and replacement planning distinct. It also helps buyers avoid treating a shutdown benchmark and two active platforms as interchangeable products.

Support, Compliance, and Documentation

In many evaluations, support, compliance, and documentation become deciding factors late in the buying process.

Resolve Pay diligence questions

Resolve Pay is the strongest fit when you want funding and automation in one motion, but buyers should still ask for implementation documentation, support expectations, API documentation, underwriting workflow details, and available compliance artifacts during diligence.

Resolve Pay does not need to be evaluated only as software. It should be evaluated as the connected workflow that supports credit decisions, payment terms, invoice funding, collections, buyer payment options, and reconciliation.

Billtrust diligence questions

Billtrust is the enterprise software benchmark when procurement needs a traditional AR workflow platform with onboarding, change management, and finance-team controls. Buyers should ask how the platform fits their existing ERP, payment acceptance, cash application, and collections processes.

Hokodo diligence questions

Hokodo is no longer a live vendor, so diligence should focus on migration mapping only. Teams should identify which parts of the historical Hokodo model matter most: buyer experience, approvals, collections handling, geographic coverage, or checkout integration.

Implementation Considerations

Implementation matters as much as feature coverage. A platform can look strong on paper and still create unnecessary handoffs if credit, invoicing, collections, and reconciliation stay disconnected.

Resolve Pay implementation considerations

Resolve Pay is typically evaluated as one connected workflow across buyer approvals, funded terms, invoicing, collections, and reconciliation. That makes it especially relevant for suppliers that want to reduce manual work while improving payment timing on approved invoices.

Billtrust implementation considerations

Billtrust is usually evaluated as a finance transformation layer inside a broader AR environment. Implementation questions often center on invoice volume, payment methods, buyer portal adoption, cash application workflows, and change management across finance teams.

Hokodo implementation considerations

Hokodo has no forward-looking implementation case for new deployments because it is no longer operating. Any implementation discussion should focus on replacement planning, buyer communication, migration timing, and continuity of trade-credit workflows.

Best Fit

Resolve Pay fits teams that need funded terms and AR automation, Billtrust fits workflow-heavy AR modernization, and Hokodo only helps teams map replacements after shutdown.

Choose Resolve Pay when supplier cash flow is the priority

Resolve Pay is the strongest fit if the core goal is extending terms while protecting working capital, accelerating cash flow, and avoiding manual collections sprawl. It is also the best fit when a supplier wants one platform for credit decisioning, invoice funding, payment workflows, collections, and reconciliation.

Use Billtrust as an AR workflow benchmark

Billtrust is most useful as a benchmark if the core goal is redesigning invoice-to-cash operations across invoicing, payments, portals, cash application, and receivables reporting. It is a different buying motion from funded net terms.

Use Hokodo only as replacement context

Hokodo is useful only if your team is replacing a European embedded trade-credit model and needs to define which parts of that experience must survive in the next platform. It is not a live vendor option for new 2026 rollouts.

Final Verdict

Resolve Pay is the best overall answer in Resolve Pay vs Billtrust vs Hokodo for suppliers that need funded net terms, faster cash flow, and less internal credit and collections burden.

For suppliers that want to offer net terms, get paid faster on approved invoices, and avoid carrying the same receivables risk internally, Resolve Pay is the strongest option because it combines non-recourse support, credit workflows, invoicing, collections, payment options, and AR automation in one platform.

Billtrust remains a useful benchmark for enterprise finance teams modernizing invoice delivery, buyer self-service, payment acceptance, cash application, and collections visibility. Hokodo is useful only as historical context because it shut down in 2026 and is no longer a live option for new rollouts.

If your primary need is funded net terms that help grow B2B sales without turning your finance team into a bank, Resolve Pay is the platform in this comparison most worth evaluating first. See how Resolve Pay works

Frequently Asked Questions

How does Resolve Pay help suppliers offer net terms?

Resolve Pay helps suppliers offer net terms by combining buyer credit workflows, invoice funding, payment reminders, collections, and receivables automation. This lets suppliers give buyers more time to pay while keeping their own cash flow moving on approved invoices.

What types of businesses are a good fit for Resolve Pay?

Resolve Pay is a strong fit for B2B suppliers, distributors, manufacturers, wholesalers, and ecommerce teams that sell to business buyers and want to offer payment terms without adding more manual AR work.

Does Resolve Pay support ecommerce and ERP workflows?

Yes. Resolve Pay supports ERP, accounting, ecommerce, and API-based workflows, including integrations across systems such as QuickBooks Online, Xero, Sage Intacct, NetSuite, Shopify, BigCommerce, Magento 2, and WooCommerce.

How does Resolve Pay reduce AR workload?

Resolve Pay helps reduce AR workload by connecting credit decisions, invoicing, payment reminders, collections, payment acceptance, and reconciliation in one workflow. Finance teams can manage net terms, COD, and due-upon-receipt invoice workflows with less manual follow-up.

Why choose Resolve Pay for B2B net terms?

Resolve Pay is built for suppliers that want to offer buyer-friendly terms while improving cash flow and reducing credit and collections burden. It is especially useful when the business wants a modern, embedded B2B payments platform instead of separate tools for credit, funding, invoicing, and collections.

This post is to be used for informational purposes only and does not constitute formal legal, business, or tax advice. Each person should consult his or her own attorney, business advisor, or tax advisor with respect to matters referenced in this post. Resolve assumes no liability for actions taken in reliance upon the information contained herein.