Third-party services monitoring

Third-party services monitoring is an ongoing (monthly) service: we track the availability and functioning of your site's external dependencies — payment systems, delivery/warehouse/CRM APIs, CDN, authentication providers, maps, chats, advertising and analytics scripts. We use their public status pages and/or direct checks of key endpoints (where appropriate and permitted) and send an alert on an outage or degradation, and keep a history of vendor incidents. This helps quickly understand that the problem is not on your side but at the provider, and make a decision (enable a fallback, warn customers, wait). Honestly about the essence: this is observation and alerting, NOT fixing someone else's service — we cannot influence a third-party provider's infrastructure, recovery is on their side; we only give early understanding and facts. Honestly about data: we rely on what is accessible from the outside — public status pages (their accuracy and timeliness depend on the vendor and sometimes lag reality) and external endpoint checks (they see availability but not the whole internal picture of the service). So this is an indicator, not an absolute. Coverage is only the configured services; someone must react to an alert. An important boundary: this is monitoring of external dependencies, not their replacement, not building fault tolerance (backup providers, fallbacks — separate development) and not the contractual relationship with the vendor. If your site barely depends on external services, the service may be overkill. Picture this: instead of 'payment is failing, support spends an hour looking for a bug on our side, and the problem was at the payment gateway' you immediately see an alert that the vendor has an incident and redirect attention correctly. The base price starts from 10,000 ₽ per month; it depends on the number of services and the check method.

• The site depends on external services but you learn of their outages last.
• You spend time looking for a bug on your side while the problem was at the provider.
• There is no single picture of the state of all critical dependencies.
• You do not track degradations of payment/delivery APIs and the CDN.

• Tracking availability of external dependencies (payments, APIs, CDN, auth, etc.)
• Vendors' public status pages and/or external endpoint checks
• Alerts on a provider outage or degradation
• A history of vendor incidents
• Understanding 'the problem is at the vendor, not us'
• A single picture of dependency status
• Monthly continuous operation
• An alert channel of your choice (email, messenger, webhook)

• You immediately understand when the problem is at the provider, not you
• You save time on a blind bug hunt
• You can warn customers or enable a fallback in time
• You have a vendor outage history for a conversation with them

• We agree on the list of critical dependencies and the check method (status pages/endpoints)
• We set up tracking and alerts, accounting for vendors' access rules
• We launch monitoring, keep an incident history

• Will you fix an outage at the payment provider/CDN/API?

  No. These are someone else's services — we cannot influence their infrastructure or recover them. We quickly report that the outage is at the vendor and give facts so you can decide (a fallback, warning customers, waiting). Recovery is on the provider's side.

• How accurately do you see another service's state?

  It is an indicator, not an absolute. We rely on public status pages (their accuracy and timeliness depend on the vendor and sometimes lag) and external endpoint checks (they see availability but not the whole internal picture). We do not see the full internal workings of someone else's service.

• Will you build backup providers and fallbacks?

  No, that is separate fault-tolerance development. Monitoring only gives early understanding of an outage; building backup paths and switching is a separate task (ours or your team's).