Business Model Comparison
How PRISM Commerce differs from marketplace, classic dropshipping, forwarding service and classic proxy buying.
Distinction from adjacent models
The distinctions below are architectural. They do not imply that every real-world service bearing an adjacent label has identical features.
| Adjacent model | Typical organizing relationship | Distinction from PRISM Commerce |
|---|---|---|
| Marketplace | Multiple sellers may transact with customers through a platform. | PRISM has one customer-facing retailer/MoR in the base architecture; upstream inventory sources and expert curators are not independent sellers to that customer. |
| Classic dropshipping | A seller may transmit an order to a supplier that ships directly to the customer. | Supplier-direct shipping may occur in PRISM, but it is not the defining feature. PRISM is defined by Virtual Inventory, On-Demand Sourcing, unified retail responsibility, and managed downstream flow, which may include consolidation or other fulfillment steps. |
| Forwarding service | The service principally receives or transports goods that the customer has purchased elsewhere. | In PRISM, the customer purchases from the PRISM retailer. The platform’s upstream purchase is its procurement activity, not merely transport of the customer’s separate purchase. |
| Classic proxy buying | A service may purchase as an agent or intermediary on the customer’s instruction. | In the PRISM base model, the platform presents and completes its own retail transaction with the customer. Proxy is not used as the leading financial/compliance descriptor and does not, by itself, establish an agency relationship. |
PRISM Commerce is therefore not automatically a marketplace, classic dropshipping, a forwarding service, or classic proxy buying. A specific implementation may incorporate operational features associated with those models, but classification depends on the complete relationship.
Comparison by dimension
| Dimension | PRISM Commerce | Marketplace | Classic dropshipping | Forwarding service | Classic proxy buying |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Customer-facing seller | One retailer in the base model | Commonly one of multiple sellers | Seller remains customer-facing, but structure varies | Customer usually purchased elsewhere | May involve principal/agent or intermediary structure |
| Displayed inventory | Virtual Inventory; no required advance purchase of all displayed goods | Depends on sellers | Commonly supplier-held | Not the forwarder’s retail assortment | Selected on customer instruction or request |
| Procurement timing | Triggered by paid customer order | Seller-specific | Order transmitted to supplier | Customer purchase precedes forwarding | Purchase performed under service arrangement |
| Upstream source | Procurement counterparty, not the end-customer seller in the base model | May be the end-customer seller | Supplier supports seller fulfillment | Original merchant sold to customer | Original merchant relationship depends on arrangement |
| Fulfillment | Platform-managed or coordinated; multiple paths possible | Varies by seller/platform | Often supplier-direct | Transport/receipt is central | Purchase assistance plus possible logistics |
| Expert curation | Core ECC/ECS/DECN architecture without independent seller status in the base model | Curator may instead be a seller or affiliate | Not a defining layer | Not defining | Not defining |
The table is an analytical comparison, not a declaration about every service using these labels. Hybrid structures are possible. A platform should be classified from its actual end-to-end architecture.
Glossary: marketplace · dropshipping · forwarding service · proxy buying
Cite this page
PRISM Commerce Initiative. “Business Model Comparison.” https://prismcommerce.org/en/comparison/. Based on Pobezhimov, A., PRISM Commerce — Canonical Specification, Version 1.1, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22978762.