Amiko vs Pega Smart Dispute: which fits your dispute operation?

What Pega Smart Dispute is

Pega Smart Dispute is Pega’s dispute case-management application, built on its business-process-management (BPM) platform. Based on Pega’s public materials (July 2026), it provides configurable dispute workflows, rule-based automation and integration into a bank’s wider Pega estate. Implementations are typically delivered as professional-services projects, and pricing has historically been linked to case or chargeback volumes. Those are strengths in one specific scenario: a large institution consolidating many processes onto one BPM platform with a standing Pega delivery team.

What Amiko is

Amiko is a dispute management platform built by Rivero, a Swiss company founded by payment insiders, and used in production by European issuers and processors including Cembra Money Bank, Viseca, SIX, Advanzia Bank, Swissquote, PostFinance Bank, Suitsme, and Corner Banca. It covers the full lifecycle: digital intake; pre-dispute deflection via native Verifi and Ethoca automation; case handling; fraud reporting; cardholder communication; and scheme submission, with Amiko Autopilot executing qualified cases end-to-end automatically and Amiko Copilot assisting analysts with complex cases. It runs as SaaS with no integration into the processing system, so deployment takes weeks, not quarters.

Comparison Overview

Amiko by Rivero (deployed capability) vs. Pega Smart Dispute (public materials, Jul 2026)

→ Product foundation

• Amiko by Rivero: Dispute-native platform; scheme know-how embedded and maintained by Rivero

• Pega Smart Dispute: Dispute templates on a general-purpose BPM platform

→ Implementation

• Amiko by Rivero: Weeks; no processing-system integration required

• Pega Smart Dispute: Professional-services projects; public case studies describe multi-month programmes

→ Pricing model

• Amiko by Rivero: SaaS subscription; predictable and forecastable

• Pega Smart Dispute: Historically linked to chargeback/case volume per market reports; costs scale with disputes

→ Automation

• Amiko by Rivero: Published customer results: ~75% in-app self-service at Cembra; 2 of 3 cases with zero manual handling; Autopilot for end-to-end execution

• Pega Smart Dispute: Rule-based BPM automation; configuration owned by the bank or integrator

→ Cardholder self-service

• Amiko by Rivero: In-app virtual agent, multi-language; pluggable via API/MCP/A2A into existing chatbots

• Pega Smart Dispute: No cardholder-facing self-service described in public materials

→ Verifi / Ethoca

• Amiko by Rivero: Native, automated batch processing (~35% of eligible cases at Cembra resolved as direct merchant credits)

• Pega Smart Dispute: Not described in public materials

→ Payment network and compliance updates

• Amiko by Rivero: Included in the SaaS fee; Rivero maintains compliance rule changes as a managed part of the product

• Pega Smart Dispute: Bank/integrator responsibility within the BPM configuration

→ European footprint

• Amiko by Rivero: Swiss company; PCI DSS certified; GDPR/FADP; ISO 27001; EU issuer references

• Pega Smart Dispute: Global enterprise vendor; dispute-specific EU issuer references not published

When Pega may still be the right choice

If your organisation has standardised its operating model on Pega, runs an internal Pega centre of excellence, and values a single BPM platform over best-of-breed tooling, then extending it to disputes is a defensible choice. The trade-offs are time-to-value, service costs, and a pricing model that scales with your dispute volume.

Why issuers switch

The pattern we hear from banks evaluating a move away from BPM-based dispute handling: implementation and maintenance costs that outgrew the business case, per-case pricing that punishes growth, and no cardholder-facing experience. Because Amiko needs no integration with payment processing systems, banks can run it in parallel during a controlled migration rather than attempting a big-bang switch. Many banks also appreciate that Amiko can run in parallel with their existing system during a controlled migration.

Why this comparison matters

Choosing the right dispute management platform directly affects operational costs, cardholder experience, and regulatory compliance. This comparison highlights the practical differences between a general-purpose BPM approach and a dispute-native SaaS solution built specifically for issuers. Understanding these trade-offs helps European banks make informed decisions that balance implementation speed, automation potential, and long-term ownership.