How to choose a French approved platform in 2026

The approved platform handles statutory transmission and routing functions. Compatible software may rely on a separate approved platform. The former PDP term still appears in older documents; check current status on the official list and distinguish the situations described by DGFiP.

Comparison uses six criteria, with evidence requested for each. We use the same entity and flow scope to make offers comparable.

Pennylane appears on the DGFiP list of operators meeting the requirements, including interoperability tests, checked on 6 October 2026. We have used Pennylane for four years for approximately half our clients. We value accounting centralisation and clean pre-accounting preparation; reporting needs additional work depending on requirements.

We favour an integrated solution when the company already invoices in Pennylane or can move simple entities into it. If a business-specific enterprise resource planning system (ERP) must remain the invoice source, we request a connector and status-return demonstration. Public-sector invoices should also feature in the demonstration where they represent a significant flow.

Prepare anonymised data and expected outcomes. Check issuance, receipt, credit note, rejection, correction and export. Ask what is included and what needs development. Keep the record: a sales demonstration is not acceptance testing in your environment.

Selection starts with the tool currently issuing invoices, entity count and data-exchange quality. We ask which source must remain and who uses exports. A business invoicing within its accounting tool faces a different project from a group whose industry ERP must remain the source.

We separate regulatory needs from management needs. A platform may transmit invoices without providing the financial reporting management requires. Conversely, a dashboard does not demonstrate regulatory-flow coverage. Compare issuing, receipt, e-reporting, status returns and exports separately, with evidence for each function.

Support is an operational criterion: ask who responds when a recipient does not receive an invoice or a connector fails. The answer should identify owner, channel and required information. We recommend testing the incident route before signing, using a representative business scenario instead of a standard presentation.

Platform status is checked in the official DGFiP list on the decision date. An approved platform (PA) is not simply compatible software. The former PDP meant plateforme de dématérialisation partenaire. We distinguish operators meeting the conditions, including interoperability tests, from operators still awaiting that stage.

The public invoicing portal (PPF) provides the public directory and data-concentration functions. The electronic invoicing address enables routing to the recipient. Ask the platform how it designates and updates this address. For multiple companies, check entity, identifiers and rights before sharing access.

Approval does not replace acceptance testing in your environment. It does not demonstrate data quality, connector mapping or team autonomy. We recommend retaining dated official-status evidence and a demonstration record. The decision therefore separates regulatory eligibility from suitability for your actual operations.

The connector must carry useful data and make statuses actionable within finance. We request clarification of accepted formats: Factur-X, UBL or CII according to scope. The demonstration starts with an ERP invoice and checks receipt, response, credit note and rejection. A successful export does not prove end-to-end continuity.

The application programming interface (API) should be reviewed with integration maintainers. Request documentation, access requirements, retry rules and error handling. We recommend evidence on important scenarios, including duplicates and interruptions. The aim is to identify who acts when data or statuses stop flowing.

The return to accounting must preserve references. Check how an invoice, credit note and partial payment reconcile after submission. Payment-provider fees should not be confused with reduced sales. We separate these checks from platform choice so an integration promise is not treated as reconciliation evidence.

The contract should describe covered functions, volumes, entities and services. We compare equivalent scopes rather than unrelated subscriptions. Separate issuing, receipt, e-reporting, connectors, data migration and support. A paid option necessary for your process belongs in the budget before selection.

Exit arrangements are part of the decision: ask which documents, data and statuses can be recovered, in what format and through which procedure. Retain address-change rules and migration responsibilities. We recommend testing exports with accounting. A downloadable file must remain useful for recovering and reconciling historical transactions.

A documented decision links each important criterion to evidence and a business need. We recommend a short grid: requirement, vendor answer, demonstration, open point and decision. A global score should not hide a blocking issue on an essential source. The selected solution must cover the actual process rather than win on secondary features. Explain which requirements are mandatory and which are preferences before assigning any ranking or comparing subscription prices.

We distinguish demonstrated functions, announced functions and required developments. A decisive sales answer becomes a written condition. If the connector depends on a future release, planning and budget must include it. Management therefore sees accepted trade-offs and dependencies rather than a compliance promise without implementation detail. Record the evidence date, tested scenario and person responsible for the unresolved point, so later discussions can refer to the same basis.

Reassess selection when entities, sources or activity change. A platform suited to simple invoicing may require new interfaces after an acquisition or sales-channel addition. We recommend retaining the original grid and scenarios. They help verify continuity and specify further integration needs without restarting comparison from zero. The goal is a decision that remains understandable to finance and management, including when the original project contacts are no longer available.