Changing core systems is sometimes compared to replacing the engine on a car while it's streaking down a highway.
These massive
The survey also found that overall, satisfaction was higher outside of the Big Three, or FIS, Fiserv and Jack Henry.
"When most people refer to core, they're thinking of the 'traditional' core solutions that come from the Big Three," said Brad Smith, who leads Cornerstone Advisors' transformation service line. Those vendors bundle together customer recordkeeping, consumer and commercial deposit and loan account servicing, a general ledger and more, along with some level of integration with third-party vendors. But a slew of "unbundled" and "next-gen" cores, many of which come from overseas, are
When banks do change cores, it often boils down to three reasons, said Smith: They want better support, they've outgrown their current system because they have more complex needs, or they want easy integrations to fintechs and other third parties. Some banks will adopt a second, or "sidecar," core to underpin a new digital brand or banking-as-a-service endeavor — testing its potential for the larger institution at the same time.
Cornerstone Advisors groups the factors that go into such decisions into five categories: functionality and capabilities; architecture, where questions about open systems, API integrations and cloud-native arise; vendor maturity, track record and financial stability; customer service and support, which can even vary between core products under a single vendor; and price. Bank executives have echoed these sentiments in interviews over the past several years. Here are the most common considerations that banks prioritize when evaluating a core migration.