Skyward Research: Fraud Consequences and Protection Approaches in the Messaging Industry

Fraud directly impacts operator revenue: 85% of providers confirm serious consequences. However, the nature of these consequences depends heavily on company size.

• Large operators suffer the most from direct financial losses (83%). The reasons include complex routing with many direct MNO connections, regulatory pressures, legacy systems that resist modern antifraud integration, and slow decision-making due to bureaucracy. Paradoxically, those who lose the most are often the slowest to adopt effective solutions.

• Medium operators, in contrast, are most affected by blocked routes (50%). They actively seek cheaper routes, sometimes entering grey zones, but lack the bargaining power of large players to force unblocking. Most do not have dedicated antifraud teams, yet they have enough traffic to become attractive targets. Growth itself creates vulnerability: protection struggles to keep pace with expanding scale.

• Small operators face a nearly equal mix of both financial losses (40%) and blocked routes (40%).

Fraud remains a major and growing industry challenge across all segments.

The most popular approach to fraud management is building in-house tools (34%), followed by manual processes and whitelisting (29%) and built-in switch firewalls (24%). Only 13% use dedicated third-party antifraud solutions.

Company size strongly influences the choice of approach, and each segment has its own logic and its own problems.

• Small operators rely on manual processes (50%). They simply lack the budget for dedicated solutions or in-house development. Whitelists and Excel are often their only option. Yet 80% of them still suffer financial losses or blocked routes.

• Medium operators lean toward in-house tools (46%). They already have an IT department, and building their own solution seems cheaper and more controllable. But the majority still lose money. In-house becomes a trap – perceived savings turn into endless maintenance and continued losses.
• Large operators show a striking paradox: 80% still use manual processes, despite being the segment with the highest financial losses. Bureaucracy, legacy contracts, and resistance to change keep them stuck in outdated approaches. Few of them use third-party solutions.

The survey allows for a comparative look at how different protection methods correlate with outcomes.

• Manual processes dominate among small and large operators, yet 67–80% of them still suffer financial losses or blocked routes. This suggests that manual approaches are insufficient against modern fraud.

• Built-in firewalls serve as a middle ground, especially for medium operators (31%). These providers have moved beyond manual methods but have not yet developed in-house capabilities. The outcome is mixed: financial losses are lower than with manual methods, but not eliminated.

• In-house tools are also preferred by medium operators (46%). However, a significant portion of these providers still report financial damage. Building proprietary solutions often creates ongoing maintenance burdens without guaranteeing protection.

• Third-party solutions are mostly used by small and medium operators — those who have outgrown manual methods but cannot or will not develop their own. Adoption remains low. Large operators are absent from this category, likely due to long procurement cycles and internal bureaucracy.

The messaging industry is at a turning point. The vast majority of operators are already losing revenue to fraud, yet most continue to rely on self-made or manual methods that rarely deliver protection. The small minority that has adopted specialized solutions leads in protection effectiveness. As fraud continues to evolve, the gap between protected and vulnerable operators will only widen.