Fidelity

Name: Fidelity
Brand: Fidelity

Providing EPoS solutions that enable businesses to fully manage their retail and hospitality operations.

Est 1991|23 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 561|Web traffic 2K|FTEs 12|HQ Hessle, England, GB

Published Sep 29, 2026

01Common complaints

- If you require publicly documented security certifications - If procurement requires publicly posted SOC 2 / ISO certifications or a mature trust centre, the vendor did not provide publicly visible evidence in the materials reviewed. - If you need instant, transparent pricing and ecommerce-first onboarding - Quote-based pricing models can slow down evaluation relative to vendors that publish fees and provide immediate trial/onboarding flows. - If your operation is very simple or low-volume - For a single till, limited SKUs, and straightforward requirements, low-cost POS providers may offer sufficient functionality at lower cost and faster setup. - If you require a large, standardized marketplace of third-party apps and integrations - Organisations seeking an extensive public app marketplace and standard cloud rollouts should validate the vendor's integration breadth compared with larger cloud-native providers. - Vendor-acknowledged limitations - No explicit limitations or public roadmap were documented in the materials reviewed. - Features on the roadmap - No public roadmap disclosures were located in the reviewed materials. - Scale limitations - Not publicly documented; vendor positioning suggests support for medium-to-large multi-site environments, but buyers should validate scalability requirements in discovery. - Security or compliance documentation gaps - The vendor did not publicise SOC 2, ISO 27001, or detailed PCI responsibility statements in the materials reviewed. This documentation gap should be addressed during procurement. - API limitations or integration constraints - While the vendor lists integrations with accounting systems and specific wholesalers, no public developer portal or API documentation was identified. Buyers requiring bespoke integrations should clarify: - Availability of APIs or file-based exports - Costs and lead times for bespoke interfaces - Ongoing support model for integrations

Deal disqualifiers (poor fit)

Very small merchants that require self-serve signup and published pricing
Organisations that require publicly posted security certifications (SOC 2/ISO) as a procurement gate unless the vendor can provide documentation under NDA

02Why they buy

- Unified retail and hospitality functionality in one system as presented by the vendor - The vendor positions the solution as a consolidated system for mixed operations. - Cashless campus and access-control integration examples - Case study material describes an integration covering EPoS, a cashless wallet, an online portal, and room-access card functionality. - Service-oriented delivery model - The vendor lists installation, onboarding, maintenance contracts, support, and health checks as elements of its service offering. - Where competitors have advantages - Some competitors publish entry pricing and provide rapid self-service onboarding, which can reduce procurement friction for some buyers.

03Field reports

Note: Online references for the name "Fidelity" are often conflated with other companies that use the same name. This section prioritises sources explicitly tied to Fidelity Systems EPoS.

Trustpilot — limited recent volume

- Trustpilot showed a generally high rating but with a small number of reviews; the distribution was heavily weighted toward higher scores and there were few recent entries, which reduces confidence that the snapshot reflects current service levels. - Example customer comment (positive): a user reported a very fast response and quick resolution in a specific incident. - Limitations: small sample size and lack of recent reviews reduce the ability to generalise from this data.

Vendor-published testimonials

The vendor homepage includes customer testimonials indicating perceived ease of use and positive return on investment. These are vendor-curated statements and were not independently validated during this research.

Community / social discussion

- Direct community discussion referencing Fidelity Systems EPoS was scarce in the materials reviewed. Many public forums and review platforms contain posts about other organisations that share the Fidelity name, so entity disambiguation is necessary when searching third-party sites. - Broader POS community discussion highlights common issues with competing vendors (for example, complaints about contracts, hidden fees, and support responsiveness reported for some competitors). These competitive dynamics can be relevant to vendors in the same market.

Reasons customers reported choosing this vendor (from vendor case study materials)

In an official case study, a customer described Fidelity as the preferred vendor in a tender and characterised the product as mature and well-adopted in relevant education sectors. These are customer statements included in a vendor-hosted case study and were presented without independent verification.

Reasons some customers might leave or avoid purchase (inferred)

Limited public information about pricing and security can be a deterrent for some buyers.
General EPOS sector churn drivers include support responsiveness, contract terms, integration gaps, and hardware reliability; prospective buyers should validate these elements with the vendor.

Goodenough College (official case study)

- Background - Residential college in London serving postgraduate accommodation. - Problem - Required a new integrated cashless EPoS solution to streamline POS and cashless transactions. - Solution components - Touchscreen POS software on PC-based terminals - Back-office suite for reporting, pricing, and stock - Integration with a cashless system (Debitrak) - Integration with room keycards to disable lost cards and transfer balances to replacements - Implementation/time to value - The vendor-hosted case study reports a short, multi-day installation for this deployment. This is a single example and reflects a specific implementation context. - Customer-reported outcomes (qualitative) - The case study includes customer comments describing reliability and reporting capabilities; these comments are curated in the vendor-hosted case study and are not accompanied by quantified ROI metrics. - Critical evaluation - As a vendor-hosted case study, the material provides useful detail about the solution architecture and integration approach but should be treated as a single-vendor perspective. Quantified benefits (e.g., labour savings, queue reduction, stock shrink impact) were not provided.

Additional case studies

The vendor materials list additional deployments (for example, other colleges and student unions), but detailed case study content for those deployments was not retrieved and reviewed here.

04Best fit

Company sizes (employee counts / revenue ranges)

Suggested fit based on vendor positioning: mid-market to larger multi-site operators rather than micro-merchants.
Practical estimate (requires validation in discovery):
- Single-site: small-to-mid sized operations with multiple departments or outlets (beyond a micro-merchant).
- Multi-site: larger groups spanning multiple locations with mid-market to enterprise staffing levels.

Industries / verticals

Higher and further education campuses, student unions
Holiday parks, attractions, and garden centres
Mixed retail + hospitality sites (e.g., venues with cafes and shops)

Roles and personas

Decision makers: operations directors, heads of retail, hospitality operations managers, finance leads (interested in reporting and accounting integration), IT/systems managers (integration and rollout)
End users: front-of-house staff (tills, handhelds), stock/warehouse teams (scanners, delivery checking)

Pain points addressed

Consolidating retail and hospitality operations into a single back-office system
Real-time reporting and multi-outlet visibility
Stock control, promotions, and ordering automation

Qualification criteria (good fit)

Multi-outlet environments where a consolidated back office reduces reconciliation effort
Organisations seeking service-oriented implementation and long-term support contracts
Education operators requiring cashless integrations and controlled access features

05The pitch

What the product does (core value proposition in objective terms)

- Fidelity Systems (branded as Fidelity EPoS) provides an integrated electronic point-of-sale (EPoS) platform for retail and hospitality operators. The platform is presented as a single system that covers front-of-house tills and back-office functions such as reporting, stock management, promotions, ordering, and integrations. - The vendor describes itself as service-oriented, offering implementation/onboarding, hardware supply, and ongoing support as part of the solution.

Target market and market positioning

Primary stated fit: medium-sized single-site businesses and medium/large multi-site groups, particularly those that combine hospitality and retail operations. The vendor highlights deployments in education/colleges, student unions, holiday parks, tourist attractions, and garden centres.

Get a comprehensive analysis of Fidelity including market position, competitive landscape, adoption trends, and peer benchmarks.

Download full report →