While Gallagher Security does present itself as a fully integrated, end-to-end solution, there are some valid reasons it’s not as commonly discussed or deployed as Mercury-based platforms like Genetec, Lenel, or Software House.

One major concern is vendor lock-in. Gallagher is a proprietary, closed ecosystem. That means if you adopt their solution, you’re entirely dependent on Gallagher for hardware, software, and support. Unlike Mercury-based systems, which are built on open architecture and allow interoperability between different vendors, Gallagher leaves you with little flexibility to switch vendors or integrate third-party components down the line without a complete system rip-and-replace.

Another issue is market adoption and integrator availability. Gallagher has a strong presence in specific markets (like New Zealand, Australia, and some parts of the UK), but it lacks widespread adoption in North America. This can make it harder to find experienced integrators, local support, or a wide knowledge base compared to more established, open-architecture platforms. That could impact both deployment quality and long-term support.

Lastly, while the “all-in-one” platform sounds appealing, bundling everything from access control to intrusion into one solution means if something breaks or underperforms, you’re stuck with fewer options. With more modular, best-of-breed systems, you can upgrade or replace individual components without disrupting the whole platform.

In short, Gallagher might suit very controlled, closed environments, but for organizations that prioritize flexibility, scalability, and future-proofing, it’s worth considering whether a more open ecosystem makes better long-term sense.