> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://docs.flycode.com/docs/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://docs.flycode.com/docs/read-more/flycode-vs-churnkey-for-failed-payment-recovery.md). # FlyCode vs Churnkey for failed payment recovery FlyCode vs Churnkey: Churnkey is a cancel-flow tool with a recovery module that stacks retries on Stripe; FlyCode replaces the retry engine. Features, pricing, fit. *By the FlyCode team. Last reviewed September 2026.* {% hint style="info" %} **TL;DR:** Churnkey and FlyCode solve different churn problems. Churnkey is a voluntary-churn product: cancel flows, pause and discount offers, exit surveys, with an involuntary-churn module on the side that adds retries and payment walls on top of Stripe's own retries. FlyCode is an involuntary-churn engine: it replaces the retry decision with a per-merchant model, charges backup cards, coordinates outreach with retries and orchestrates across processors, and is paid only on recovered revenue above baseline. Many teams run both: Churnkey on the cancel button, FlyCode on the failed payment. {% endhint %} {% hint style="success" %} **Key takeaways** * Churnkey's core product is cancellation prevention; its failed-payment recovery is a module that stacks retries on Stripe's schedule, which can push a card past network attempt limits and lower authorization rates. * FlyCode replaces the retry engine with one coordinated layer, adds backup payment routing and outreach timed to retries, and reports a 25 to 40 percent recovery lift over legacy approaches with a 5 to 9 percent ARR increase. * Churnkey's own reporting cites an 11 percent recovery rate across detected involuntary churn and 32 percent inside dunning campaigns; FlyCode's open benchmark scores Churnkey 5.6 out of 10 and FlyCode 8.8. * Pricing differs in kind: Churnkey charges MRR-based subscription tiers; FlyCode charges only on dollars recovered above your baseline. {% endhint %} ## At a glance | | FlyCode | Churnkey | | ------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Primary problem | Involuntary churn from failed payments | Voluntary churn and cancellations | | Core mechanism | Per-merchant ML retries, backup payment methods, coordinated outreach, multi-processor orchestration, AI agents | Cancel flows, pause and discount offers, exit surveys, Feedback AI, plus a recovery module (retries and payment walls) | | Retry approach | Replaces the retry engine: one coordinated schedule per card | Stacks retries on top of Stripe's native retries | | Authorization-rate risk from stacking | No | Yes, two systems can retry the same card on overlapping schedules | | Published recovery figures | 25 to 40 percent above baseline; 5 to 9 percent ARR lift; named case studies (Framer, Capsho, Gardencup, Cymbiotika, BUBS Naturals) | 11 percent recovery across detected involuntary churn; 32 percent inside dunning campaigns (Churnkey reporting) | | Card network data | Direct Visa and Mastercard partnerships | Processor data only | | Backup payment methods | Yes, automatic | No | | Multi-processor orchestration | Yes (Stripe payment orchestration partner) | No | | Integrations | Stripe app, Shopify (Recharge, Skio, Stay AI, Loop), Chargebee, Braintree, PayPal | Major billing systems, Stripe-centred | | Pricing | Pay on recovery above baseline; no seats, minimums or setup fee | MRR-based subscription tiers | | Time to deploy | Minutes (Stripe app) to a day (Shopify apps) | Days | | Best for | Subscription businesses that want the most failed-payment recovery, B2C and B2B | Teams whose bigger problem is voluntary cancellations | ## Where Churnkey is strong Churnkey started as a cancellation save-flow product and that remains its best-in-class capability: customizable cancel flows, pause logic, targeted discount offers, downgrade paths, exit surveys and Feedback AI that classifies cancel reasons. Its published retention data shows discounts retaining about 13 percent of would-be cancellers and pauses rescuing about 9 percent. It also offers in-app payment walls, SMS, email and in-app prompts, and A/B testing on dunning subject lines. If voluntary churn is your dominant loss, Churnkey addresses it directly. ## Where the two differ on failed payments **Replace versus stack.** Churnkey's recovery module sits on top of Stripe and adds its own retries to Stripe's. Two independent systems then decide when to hit the same card without coordinating. Issuers read repeated, uncoordinated attempts as risk, Visa and Mastercard both cap reattempts and charge for excess, and the damage tends to show up as a lower first-attempt authorization rate across all your healthy transactions, not just the retried ones. FlyCode owns the whole retry decision: Stripe's native retries are minimized at go-live and every attempt on a card comes from one schedule. See [Card network retry rules](https://docs.flycode.com/docs/read-more/card-network-retry-rules-for-failed-payments-visa-and-mastercard). **Recovery without the customer.** Churnkey's approach leans on customer engagement: payment walls, emails and SMS asking for action. FlyCode recovers silently first (model-timed retries, then a backup card on file) and only contacts the customer when the network genuinely needs them, which avoids converting unaware customers into cancellations. **Data.** Churnkey retries on processor data. FlyCode's per-merchant models are trained with Visa and Mastercard network data and read more than 100 data points per transaction to infer the real decline cause behind codes like `do_not_honor`. **Measurement and pricing.** Churnkey reports a campaign-based metric and charges subscription tiers regardless of results. FlyCode measures incremental recovery against your own prior baseline and charges only on that increment; if it recovers nothing extra you pay nothing. In FlyCode's open, criteria-based [Stripe failed payment recovery benchmark](https://www.flycode.com/blog/stripe-failed-payment-recovery-benchmark), Churnkey scores 5.6 out of 10 (retries stack on Stripe's schedule, campaign-based metric, fixed pricing) and FlyCode 8.8. ## Can I run both? Yes, and many teams do. Keep Churnkey on cancellation flows, pause offers and exit surveys, and put FlyCode on failed payments. The two layers do not conflict as long as only one system retries and emails on failed invoices: turn off Churnkey's recovery module (or set it to cancel-flow only) when FlyCode goes live. Stripe users who do not need a cancel-flow tool can also pair FlyCode with Stripe's native cancellation features. ## Which should you choose? If your main loss is customers clicking cancel, start with Churnkey. If your main loss is customers whose card failed, or you want the most recovery per failed dollar without stacking retries, choose FlyCode. If both matter, run both, with FlyCode owning the payment side. ## Related * [FlyCode vs Churnkey vs Paddle/ProfitWell Retain: the 2026 B2C comparison](https://www.flycode.com/blog/flycode-vs-churnkey-vs-profitwell-retain-b2c-comparison-2026) * [Top 10 Churnkey alternatives for 2026](https://www.flycode.com/blog/churnkey-alternatives-2026-payment-recovery-cancel-flows) * [Payment recovery platforms compared](https://docs.flycode.com/docs/read-more/payment-recovery-platforms-compared-2026) * [FlyCode vs. ProfitWell (Paddle Retain)](https://help.flycode.com/flycode-vs.-profitwell-paddle-retain) in the Help Center --- # Agent Instructions This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com. ## Querying This Documentation If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question. Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter: ``` GET https://docs.flycode.com/docs/read-more/flycode-vs-churnkey-for-failed-payment-recovery.md?ask=&goal= ``` `ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language. `goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal. The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation. Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.