When third-party software integrates with traditional access control systems through APIs, the result often looks seamless on paper. The reality at the door tells a different story.
While your membership management software might instantly update a user's status, traditional integrations often rely on scheduled synchronisation intervals (perhaps every 5-10 minutes) meaning a cancelled membership could maintain door access until the next update cycle.
This latency gap represents more than a minor inconvenience. It's a fundamental architectural limitation that stems from layering integration software on top of proprietary systems designed for different use cases entirely.
What are the costs of traditional access integration?
Traditional access control systems evolved as closed ecosystems where hardware, software, and credentials formed an integrated package. When these systems added API capabilities, they essentially bolted external connectivity onto architectures never designed for real-time third-party control.
The typical integration flow creates multiple points of potential failure. Your application calls the vendor's API, which communicates with their management software, which then signals the controller.
Each hop introduces latency, and any disruption in this chain can leave users stranded at doors or, worse, compromise security protocols.
Consider the financial implications for a gym chain. If a member's payment fails and their access should be immediately revoked, API-dependent systems might maintain a window of vulnerability lasting several minutes. During peak hours, that delay multiplies across hundreds of entry attempts.
How does OEM integration remove API dependency?
OEM controllers like DeltaQuest offer a fundamentally different architectural approach. Rather than communicating through intermediary software layers, your application maintains direct communication with door hardware via TCP/IP or USB connections.
When a credential is presented, the controller immediately queries your software and receives an unlock command in milliseconds.
Sub-second response times aren't aspirational, they're essential. Industry benchmarks show that APIs performing optimally achieve 0.1-1 second response times, while delays exceeding one second significantly impact user experience.
Research demonstrates that API delays over two seconds cause noticeable user frustration, with Amazon reporting that every 100ms of latency costs 1% of profit. Access control systems operating through multiple API layers struggle to meet these benchmarks consistently.
This architecture delivers several operational advantages:
- Response time approaches native performance – 200ms typical response over local network connections with zero middleware delays
- Comprehensive reader support – Compatible with RS232, Clock & Data, Wiegand, and RS485 protocols supporting QR code, smartcard (LEGIC, Mifare, HID), proximity cards, biometrics, and mobile credentials
- Advanced authentication capabilities – Supports PINs up to 15 digits with customisable timeout settings and multi-factor authentication workflows
- Elimination of external dependencies – Direct hardware communication removes reliance on third-party SDK updates, API rate limits, or vendor service availability
Perhaps most significantly, OEM integration allows you to implement features like anti-passback functionality, time-based access rules, and integration with other building systems. These become software features you control rather than vendor limitations you work around.
How can you scale access control without recurring vendor fees?
Traditional access control vendors typically monetise through per-door or per-user licensing models. As your deployment grows, these fees compound.
OEM hardware follows a different economic model. Once you purchase controllers, they operate without mandatory recurring fees to external vendors. Your scaling costs become predictable:
- Additional hardware requirements
- Your own infrastructure scaling
- No per-door licensing fees
- No feature activation costs
The economics become stark at scale. Cloud access control services typically charge $30-200 per door monthly, meaning a 100-door facility faces $36,000-240,000 in annual software fees alone. Enterprise solutions like Brivo charge £6-15 per door monthly plus base platform fees of $250-580 per month.
OEM hardware eliminates these recurring costs after the initial controller investment, with installation typically adding £350-1,500 per door as a one-time expense.
OEM controllers, when used in a model where they do not host the user database themselves, can significantly reduce the recurring cost burden after the initial capital investment.
The user credentials and system rules are stored in the central management software (in the cloud or on-premises), which typically has ample compute and storage resources.
Therefore, the limitation on the number of credentials is not tied to each controller, but rather to the capabilities of the management software and underlying server infrastructure.
Similarly, scalability is not limited by the number of controllers you can deploy (you can expand as needed). Each controller handles door operations locally (e.g. unlocking, reading credentials), but delegates user database lookups and policy logic to the central platform.
In such an architecture, there is no hard cap (e.g., “64 doors per server”) built into the controller itself; scalability is instead a function of how well the software, network, and database architectures are designed.
Scalability does have practical boundaries. Each DeltaQuest controller manages up to 32 access points, requiring multiple controllers for larger facilities. Database synchronisation across distributed controllers becomes a design consideration, particularly for real-time anti-passback scenarios spanning multiple buildings.
Network bandwidth planning matters when hundreds of controllers query your authentication service simultaneously during peak entry periods.
However, these engineering challenges remain under your control rather than vendor-imposed limits.
How do you implement OEM integration in your software platform?
For software companies evaluating OEM integration, the decision often hinges on the balance between development resources and long-term strategic control. Unlike SDK-based approaches, OEM integration does not require SDK-level programming.
Instead, it uses direct communication with the controller’s hardware protocol. This avoids dependency on external libraries, reducing the risk of integration breaking due to vendor updates or changes. Once completed, the integration requires little to no ongoing maintenance.
Development Effort
Integrating with Nortech’s OEM DeltaQuest controller can typically be achieved in 1–2 weeks, provided the development team has a clear understanding of the protocol documentation and command structure. This covers basic door control and credential validation.
If additional functionality is required, such as advanced anti-passback logic, mobile credential handling, vehicle access management, or customised reporting, extra development time will be required.
These enhancements not only extend the integration but also make the system more versatile and tailored to the software company’s specific requirements.
Strategic Benefits
Reduced maintenance overhead - Direct protocol integration eliminates reliance on SDK updates.
Higher stability - Once integration is done, the communication remains consistent over time.
Strategic flexibility – Software providers can build features directly into their own platforms without being constrained by a vendor’s SDK roadmap.
OEM Direct Protocol vs SDK-Based Integration
| OEM Direct Protocol | SDK-Based Integration | |
| Complexity | Requires understanding of protocol commands; generally lightweight once learned | Requires SDK knowledge and dependency management |
| Maintenance | Minimal; integration is stable unless hardware protocol changes | Requires updates when SDKs or vendor libraries change |
| Control | Full control of how access control features are implemented | Limited to functions exposed by the SDK |
| Flexibility | Can extend features based on requirements | Tied to vendor roadmap and update cycles |
| Time to Integrate | ~1-2 weeks for core features; longer if adding advanced logic | Similar or longer, depending on SDK complexity and learning curve |
Proven compatibility
The DeltaQuest platform has demonstrated seamless integration with established membership software, including Gladstone, Perfect Gym, ClubRight, and OpenPlay, thereby reducing risk for companies already established in these ecosystems.
This compatibility extends beyond simple API calls. The system supports the complex authentication workflows these platforms require while maintaining the flexibility to implement custom business logic.
Consider a typical gym deployment where members need different access levels based on membership tiers, payment status, and time-based restrictions. OEM integration allows for these rules directly in your membership software rather than working within the constraints of a third-party access control platform.
How can OEM integration become your competitive differentiator?
While competitors using vendor APIs wait for feature releases, you can ship access control innovations immediately. Custom authentication workflows, unique user experiences, and building system integrations become sustainable competitive advantages rather than feature requests submitted to third parties.
Consider the competitive implications:
- Your gym management platform can offer unified parking and facility access while competitors remain constrained by their access control vendor's roadmap
- Your property management system can integrate tenant access with building automation while others wait for API updates that may never come.
When to choose traditional API integration vs OEM access control?
The choice between traditional API integration and OEM hardware implementation ultimately depends on your strategic objectives and technical capabilities.
API integration offers:
- Faster initial implementation
- Relies on vendor expertise for hardware management
- Lower upfront development costs
- Proven reliability from established vendors
OEM integration delivers:
- Superior long-term control and scalability
- Real-time responsiveness
- Custom feature development capability
- Freedom from vendor licensing constraints
For software companies building comprehensive vertical solutions (whether in property management, membership systems, or facility operations) the integration capabilities and cost advantages of OEM controllers often justify the additional development complexity.
The result is differentiated functionality that competitors using traditional systems cannot easily replicate.
Is your access control strategy future proof?
Have you considered how your access control integration will adapt to future requirements?
The key is matching your integration approach to your business model and customer requirements.
If your software's value proposition depends on seamless, real-time integration with physical systems, the architectural advantages of OEM hardware become strategic necessities rather than technical preferences.
The access control landscape continues evolving toward open, software-defined solutions. Understanding these architectural differences positions technical teams to make informed decisions that align with both immediate project requirements and long-term platform strategies.
Modern facilities demand more than basic door control - they require intelligent systems that adapt to changing operational needs while maintaining security and user convenience. OEM integration provides the foundation for building these next-generation solutions.
