cartalyst/stripe-laravel
Laravel integration for the Stripe PHP SDK, providing a service provider, configuration file, and a Stripe facade for convenient access to Stripe's API—customers, charges, subscriptions, webhooks, and more—from within your Laravel application.
Stripe facade, and a publishable config file for API keys. "Buying" it buys container wiring and config, not billing logic. The expensive work — subscription lifecycle, proration, dunning, webhooks, idempotency — is yours either way. Frame the decision as "Stripe plus how much billing logic we own," and treat this package as a minor input to that.stripe/stripe-php directly is an ergonomics call, not a capability call. The facade exposes the full Stripe API, so there is no ceiling imposed. The wrapper's only value is DI, a config file, and a facade — all replaceable in an afternoon. Never treat it as a strategic dependency.composer.json constraint against your framework version before committing engineering time, and assume release notes are a summary rather than a changelog.Consider it when:
Look elsewhere when:
stripe/stripe-php directly is one fewer wrapper to audit and upgrade — and the facade saves you very little if you're abstracting Stripe behind your own port anyway.composer.json; do not infer from the README or the latest release note.Validate before adoption: the resolved framework/PHP constraints, release cadence and open-issue responsiveness, whether a security disclosure process exists, how quickly the package follows stripe-php majors, whether the Stripe API version is pinned in config, and whether any webhook verification or idempotency is provided (assume it is not).
Executives: This is a convenience wrapper, not a payments strategy. The strategic commitment is to Stripe; this package saves a few hours of Laravel wiring and nothing more. The risk to flag is adoption depth — modest stars, no dependent projects, unknown maintainer posture — on a component that touches money. Fund it out of the billing or payments workstream as an engineering choice, not a standalone initiative, and pair adoption with a review of the maintainers' security and release process. If the roadmap includes self-serve subscriptions, Laravel Cashier is the better-supported and safer default.
Engineering: Treat this as plumbing. It registers the official Stripe SDK in the container, exposes a Stripe facade, and ships a publishable config file — that is the whole proposition, and it is cheap to replace, which is the favorable part of its risk profile. Before adopting: confirm the Laravel constraint against our actual app version (the README's "Laravel 8" versus the v17 Laravel 12 release needs resolving), review release cadence and the security disclosure channel, pin the Stripe API version explicitly in config, and confirm keys come from env or a secrets manager rather than a committed file. Decide explicitly whether we build the subscription lifecycle or use Cashier. If we adopt, isolate all Stripe calls behind our own interface so swapping this wrapper, Cashier, or the raw SDK is a contained refactor. Also standardize: mixed direct-SDK and wrapper usage across services doubles the upgrade surface for no benefit.
Product: Choose based on the billing model, not the wrapper. Shipping standard plans, trials, and self-serve upgrades? Push for Cashier — it reaches market faster with fewer gaps than building on a thin wrapper. Shipping a bespoke model (usage-based, marketplace, custom invoicing)? This package or the raw SDK is the right level of abstraction, and the wrapper is a minor convenience. Either way, do not let the choice of wrapper become the decision. The decision is Stripe plus how much billing logic we intend to own; this package is one small input, and the recurring cost to budget is upgrade tracking across two upstream clocks — Laravel majors and stripe-php/Stripe API versions.
How can I help you explore Laravel packages today?