What is native integration?

These integrations are typically built and maintained by the software provider’s engineers. Native integrations most commonly use application programming interfaces (APIs) to connect platforms.

The term “native,” in its most technically correct usage, refers to integrations between applications made by the same organization, such as an integration between Google Meet and Google Calendar. In practice, “native integration” is also commonly used to refer to integrations which are provided by one of the platforms involved.

Many powerful platforms, including Salesforce, Google, Microsoft and Shopify, provide their own marketplaces featuring many optimized integrations which are colloquially called “native.” An integration between Zoom and Google Calendar provides a native-like user experience: the integration is found on Google’s Workspace Marketplace and is subject to a review process by Google which regulates use of user data, misleading or offensive content, scams and other potentially objectionable elements.

Native integrations of this sort are designed to be as seamless as possible, available within an application’s standard interface. They are, in a sense, out-of-the-box solutions to connect two applications.

In many cases, organizations opt for native integrations over third-party when possible to avoid the increased time, money and labor involved in creating and maintaining third-party integration processes. When native integrations are incapable of serving the needs of the end-user, organizations can choose other solutions. For example, unsupported legacy software or small custom-built applications might be too niche to garner a native integration on a platform’s marketplace.

Native integrations can also provide insufficient degrees of control for some use cases. Native integrations are designed to provide the most commonly used features for the most users. But many organizations might require more complex “if/then” interactions, integrations among several different applications in a coordinated workflow, more granular control over data flow or specific compliance features than native integrations can offer. In that case, organizations might opt for other integration solutions, such as unified APIs, iPaaS and embedded iPaaS platforms.

Sometimes the term “API” is used to differentiate third-party integrations from native, built-in integrations. This is misleading, as native integrations often use APIs (commonly REST APIs) to facilitate data exchange. Native integration is simply an approach to building integrations.

The difference isn’t in API integration or non-API integration; it’s in whether the integration is built and maintained by the application vendor or by a third-party. In the Zoom and Google example, the native integration would be built and maintained by engineers from Zoom or Google. If that native integration didn’t exist, a third-party company might need to build and market that integration to enable integration of the two products and their respective features.

Native integrations can be used to save time, reduce error potential and streamline processes. Each organization has individual integration needs, but there are many common native integration constructions.

Many IT departments and development teams use dedicated issue management platforms, such as Jira or Asana, to keep track of request tickets, progress and collaborations throughout an issue’s lifecycle. These platforms have native integrations to help with the process of resolving tickets: requests can be linked to employee identity automatically, can send emails with updates and can sync with documentation or collaboration tools.

Chat applications such as Slack offer many seamless integrations with other commonly used applications and platforms. A workspace administrator can visit a chat app’s marketplace to install a variety of integrations, as well as controlling some basic permissions and settings.

For example, project management tools such as Jira can integrate with Slack to allow users to create tickets, check ticket status, receive notifications in specified channels and more. Calendar applications such as Outlook and Google Calendar can sync with Slack to automatically change a user’s Slack status to “in a meeting” in concert with calendar appointments. Video chat applications can be launched with a simple slash command.

Customer relationship management, or CRM, platforms help businesses centralize and manage customer data. CRM tools are used to store customer data, customer support interaction records, sales and billing information, contracts and more. CRM platforms often feature native integrations that facilitate the creation of customer-related workflows.

CRM platforms can integrate with social media networks, noting interactions and engagement that indicate sales lead potential. Ecommerce platforms can automatically add order and customer information to CRM platforms. Email marketing services can use customer data in a CRM platform to send more efficient, targeted emails. Payment processors can have payments listed automatically in a CRM’s sales data flow, all in real-time.

There are other integration methods beyond native and third-party APIs. Unified API and iPaaS platforms, for example, are designed to add flexibility, scalability and power to integrations.

Unified APIs are single, standardized interfaces used to access the APIs of multiple third-party applications within a particular vertical (such as accounting, CRM or payroll). A unified API enables developers to communicate with multiple services through one endpoint, rather than integrating with each individual service and dealing with data, syntax and authentication differences among them.

One use case for a unified API integration is in the case of a large corporation in which different departments, due to mergers or specific feature or localization needs, uses different CRM platforms. A unified API can build integrations to normalize, streamline and consolidate data from multiple different CRM platforms to provide a superior experience.

Integration platform as a service (iPaaS) is a cloud-based platform with integration tools and solutions used to integrate data from multiple SaaS applications, legacy systems, databases, IoT devices and APIs hosted in different IT environments.

iPaaS platforms typically contain cloud-based libraries of pre-built connectors for different apps and services, low-code and no-code development tools for integration development and other capabilities to facilitate secure, scalable integration. iPaaS is an extension of the concept of a native integration, designed to address the reality that modern organizations often have many applications that need to be organized in workflows and data that needs to be shared and synced among them.

Their main function is to help organizations overcome integration complexity and reduce integration costs across hybrid environments, by ensuring compatible formatting, orchestrating multi-step workflows, automating data flows, handling API management and more. iPaaS is also specifically designed as a hybrid integration environment, meaning it connects applications both on-premises and in the cloud, while providing a cloud-based platform for management of those connections. That capability makes iPaaS an enticing integration method for organizations with extensive legacy systems.

Embedded integration platform as a service (EiPaaS) is a cloud-based integration solution that enables software providers to embed integration capabilities directly into their applications. In contrast with traditional iPaaS, which is used primarily by internal teams for internal use, EiPaaS is external-facing. EiPaaS is designed for customers of software applications to set up and manage their own integrations without ever leaving that host platform. 

EiPaaS tools are typically streamlined to enable a variety of integrations without the need for extensive technical know-how. EiPaaS tools can be thought of as pre-packaged infrastructure that enables easier integrations for organizations that don’t need or don’t want to build their own iPaaS platform. For SaaS companies that host EiPaaS tools, they can keep customers on their own platform rather than sending them to an iPaaS provider, and can often offer EiPaaS tools at a lower cost for consumers than they’d have with a separate iPaaS platform.

According to Zylo, enterprises managed an average of 275 SaaS applications in 2025. Integration can be a challenge, and major SaaS platforms such as Salesforce, Shopify and Microsoft offer thousands of integrations. 

Native integrations are designed to minimize labor and effort on the part of the end user. Setup is simple, there’s no need to acquire an extra service to manage integrations and an end user’s internal teams have few setup requirements.

The vendor, not the client organization or end user, bears the responsibility for maintaining, updating and monitoring a native integration. This means that the client does not have to worry about performance and functionality in the face of updates and other changes.

One way to think of the native vs. third-party integration debate is in building a house compared with purchasing an identical house that’s already built. Often, though not always, purchasing a pre-built house is going to be less expensive. In the case of integrations, many native integrations are free, with no strings attached. Others may come with a subscription, requiring some sort of premium access, or might incur charges based on per-user rates. But many of the most common native integrations are completely free, simply included features.

Native integrations can be, though again aren’t always, more secure than third-party integrations. One reason for this is the lack of a middleman. Companies constructing a native integration between their services use their own APIs, which might include advanced security features not available to the public. Azure, for example, uses Microsoft’s own security mechanisms, which are different from publicly available OAuth API security features.

While native integrations are commonly used, so too are third-party APIs. There are reasons why organizations or individuals might stray from built-in integrations.

In a native integration, typically the user must accept what the vendor provides. Users with more specific needs might find that their use cases are not covered. For example, it might not be possible for a CRM integration to include custom data fields. Scalability can also be an issue; custom integrations won’t have the obstacle of per-user costs, so while native integrations might be less expensive up front, they might be more expensive in the long term.

In situations with organization-specific or unusual needs, native integrations might not be the right answer. The goal of a native integration is to provide the most use to the most users. An organization might not find their needs met if they rely on legacy software, in-house platforms or multi-step workflow automation tools. 

Clients have little, if any, control over macro changes in native integrations. If an organization builds its workflows around native integrations over which they have little to no control, a change in integration capability or availability can disrupt client workflows.

For example, integrations an organization might rely on could be discontinued by the SaaS marketplace. Or a change in data exchange protocol might be incompatible with other parts of the client organization’s workflow.

An organization might alter its internal processes to cater to the specific ways a native integration reads data; for example, a native integration might use a phrase such as “role” instead of “job title.” A client might reword its documentation to better suit that preference, only to find that a new vendor uses “job title” instead, forcing tedious and time-consuming changes.