The generalization of electronic invoicing creates, almost mechanically, a new market: that of platforms responsible for passing invoices between companies and the tax administration. Historical publishers of accounting software, specialists in dematerialization, new entrants: competition is organized around a now highly coveted status, that of approved platform.
The central role of approved platforms
The term PDP, for partner dematerialization platform, remains the most used in everyday language, even if the tax administration now prefers the name “approved platform” since the summer of 2025. Same status, same role: a private operator registered by the DGFiP, responsible for issuing, receiving and transmitting electronic invoices between companies, as well as the associated tax data.
To obtain this registration, an operator must prove three things to the administration: its tax compliance, the security of its IT infrastructures, and its technical interoperability with the public invoicing portal as well as with other approved platforms. Final registration is only granted after successful completion of interoperability tests carried out in real conditions, a process which can take several months.
Without an approved platform, there is no compliant electronic invoicing. It is this obligation to pass which transforms a simple technical service provider into an essential link in the reform, and which explains the appetite of publishers for this status.
For companies that must choose from this offer in the process of being structured, the support of an accountant remains valuable. Firms like Keobiz help their customers navigate the technical criteria and select a platform adapted to their volumes and their sector.
The actors present
More than a hundred platforms are now registered by the DGFiP, a figure that has been steadily increasing since the first wave of registrations at the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025. This list combines very different profiles: publishers of accounting and invoicing software already well established among VSEs and SMEs, historical specialists in document dematerialization, subsidiaries of large technology groups, and some more recent players positioned specifically on this market.
This diversity reflects different strategies. Some publishers have chosen to directly integrate the status of approved platform into their existing offering, to offer an all-in-one solution to their customers who are already users. Others prefer to position themselves as technical specialists, intended to be integrated by third-party software rather than to be used directly by companies.
The Public Billing Portal (PPF), once envisaged as an exchange platform in its own right, has finally seen its role refocused on that of a central directory and data concentration point for the administration. It is therefore the approved private platforms which in fact carry most of the electronic invoice traffic.
Certain publishers already known to managers of VSEs and SMEs for their accounting or invoicing software have thus obtained their approval, which allows them to offer continuity of use to their existing customers without changing tools. Other candidates, on the contrary, rely on their in-depth technical expertise in data flow, targeting large companies and third-party publishers who wish to integrate an electronic invoicing component into their own solutions.
Economic models still in progress
The market for approved platforms remains young, and pricing models vary significantly from one player to another. Some charge by fixed monthly subscription, others by the volume of invoices processed, still others integrate the service into a broader software offering, which makes comparisons sometimes difficult for a company new to the subject.
This structuring phase should logically continue in the coming months, with a probable consolidation of the market as certain players gain the advantage and others, due to lack of sufficient volumes, could withdraw or be acquired. A classic scenario for a nascent market born from a regulatory obligation.
For companies, this potential instability argues in favor of a simple selection criterion: favor a solid player, already well established, rather than an aggressive offer on price but supported by a more fragile structure.
This pricing phase is not unique to France. In countries that have already generalized electronic invoicing, such as Italy since 2019, the operator market has also gradually structured itself, with an initial period of high diversity of offer followed by consolidation around a few dominant players. A scenario that several observers also anticipate for the French market within two to three years.
What this changes for businesses
For a company, this abundance of players has an obvious advantage: more choice, and therefore potentially better pricing conditions or better support. But it also involves more demanding selection work than a simple choice of traditional accounting software.
Another issue, less visible for the final company but decisive, concerns interoperability between platforms. An invoice issued by a company via its platform must be able to be received without a hitch by the customer, even if they have chosen a different operator. This is precisely what the interoperability tests imposed by the DGFiP verify before any final registration, a guarantee of reliability for companies which do not have to worry about the platform chosen by their commercial partners.
The criteria that come up most often among accountants consulted on the subject: compatibility with management tools already in use, the ability to manage both electronic invoicing and e-reporting, and the financial solidity of the chosen operator, a guarantee of continuity of service over several years.
In this market in the midst of a commercial battle, one thing remains certain: the choice of an approved platform is not limited to a question of price. It commits the company over several years, at the very heart of its billing cycle.
