Companies looking to transition to electronic invoicing often encounter two major players: Peppol and EDI. Both have their own characteristics and applications. To make an informed choice, it’s important to understand exactly what they entail and how they relate to each other. EDI stands for Electronic Data Interchange. It’s a collective term for various standards and methods used to exchange business data electronically. EDI has been used for decades in sectors such as retail, logistics, and manufacturing. EDI connections are established between specific trading partners. Companies make mutual agreements about the format and content of messages. These customized arrangements ensure that systems know exactly what to expect. In sectors where EDI is strongly established, sector-specific standards have often been developed. Think of EDIFACT in logistics or GS1 in retail. These standards are specifically tailored to the needs of those sectors. Peppol is an international network that uses standardized formats and protocols. Companies connected to Peppol can communicate with all other connected parties without having to make prior mutual arrangements. The network utilizes certified Access Points. These ensure the security and reliability of message traffic. Each company chooses its own Access Point provider and can thereby reach the entire network. To clarify the differences between both systems, we list the key features: EDI and Peppol differ in their approach to electronic data exchange. EDI emphasizes customized agreements between trading partners. This provides great flexibility in determining message formats and processes. However, it requires specific implementations for each new trading partner. Peppol opts for standardization. All participants use the same formats and protocols. This makes it easier to connect new trading partners but offers less room for customization in message formats. In sectors where EDI has a strong presence, we often see hybrid situations emerging. Companies continue to use EDI for existing trade relationships and specific sector processes. For new relationships or government contracts, they choose Peppol. For example, a retailer might continue to use EDI for communication with established suppliers, where years of process optimization are involved. For new suppliers or government customers, they then use Peppol. New legislation plays a role in the choice between EDI and Peppol. In Belgium, for instance, e-invoicing via Peppol will become mandatory for Business-to-Government invoicing from 2025, followed by Business-to-Business in 2026. Such developments influence the choices companies make. The choice between EDI and Peppol depends on various factors: For many companies, it’s not a matter of choosing one or the other. They use both systems, each for its own purpose. EDI for specific sector processes and existing relationships, Peppol for new relationships and government contracts. Therefore, carefully examine your own situation. Which systems do your key trading partners use? What regulations are relevant to your sector? And how do you expect this to develop in the coming years? Based on these considerations, you can make an informed choice that suits your company.Peppol vs EDI: Which e-invoicing solution suits your company?
EDI: Electronic Data Interchange
Peppol
Comparing Characteristics
Feature
EDI
Peppol
Network structure
Point-to-point connections between trading partners
Network of certified Access Points
Message formats
Flexible, based on mutual agreements or sector standards
Standardized formats (such as UBL)
Trading partners
Specific connections per trading partner
One connection provides access to all connected parties
Implementation
Customization per connection
Standard implementation via Access Point
Usage
Strongly embedded in specific sectors (retail, logistics, manufacturing)
Widely used for e-invoicing, especially in the government sector
Management
Maintenance required per connection
Centrally managed via Access Point
Practical Applications
Regulatory Developments
Conclusion