> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://loyalty-interchange.mintlify.site/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# LIP, commercial APIs, or in-house

> Observable tradeoffs between the LIP reference platform, a commercial loyalty provider, and building internally.

| Question              | LIP                                    | Commercial API         | In-house     |
| --------------------- | -------------------------------------- | ---------------------- | ------------ |
| Portable contract     | Open spec and conformance              | Usually provider-owned | Team-defined |
| Self-host             | Apache-2.0 reference platform          | Varies                 | Yes          |
| Foodservice lifecycle | Explicit evaluate-to-adjust flow       | Verify exact semantics | Must build   |
| Retry evidence        | Idempotency conflict and ledger        | Verify contract        | Must design  |
| Operations            | Reference tools; Cloud preview         | Usually managed        | Team owns    |
| Campaign breadth      | Core engagement, not the primary wedge | Often mature           | Must build   |
| Migration/adapters    | Open planner and fixture certification | Often services-led     | Must build   |

LIP fits teams that prioritize portable, inspectable checkout correctness and
can self-host or join a managed pilot. A mature suite may fit when existing
certified integrations, marketer workflow, global operations, or procurement
matter more. In-house fits a narrow differentiated use case only when the team
accepts permanent ledger, retry, migration, fraud, and operations ownership.

This table makes no vendor pricing, performance, or customer-count claim.