Compliance Provider Scorecard
Compliance Provider Scorecard
86
100
0
1
If your core headache is sanctions/PEP/adverse media and live monitoring, Sanction Scanner hits hard. Coverage is broad (3,000+ lists across 220+ countries) and updates are frequent; the API is quick, reliable, and easy to wire in. Add transaction screening/monitoring and KYB, and compliance teams get one roof instead of four. Trade-offs: you’ll still want a separate document/biometric IDV, and some users ask for deeper report filtering. Pricing starts clear—€990 for 100 entities—then goes enterprise. Strong fit for fintech, crypto, and gambling.
If your core headache is sanctions/PEP/adverse media and live monitoring, Sanction Scanner hits hard. Coverage is broad (3,000+ lists across 220+ countries) and updates are frequent; the API is quick, reliable, and easy to wire in. Add transaction screening/monitoring and KYB, and compliance teams get one roof instead of four. Trade-offs: you’ll still want a separate document/biometric IDV, and some users ask for deeper report filtering. Pricing starts clear—€990 for 100 entities—then goes enterprise. Strong fit for fintech, crypto, and gambling.
86/100
Total Score
- Coverage & Freshness90/100 Amazing3,000+ sanctions/PEP/watchlists, 220+ countries, frequent refresh; ongoing monitoring baked in.
- Integration & Performance87/100 AmazingREST API, webhooks, ~250 ms avg response, 99.95% uptime; quick “hours” integration claim.
- Monitoring & Casework82/100 Very goodTransaction screening/monitoring, adverse media, customer risk, KYB—centralized ops for analysts.
Good for
- Broad, current data — 3,000+ lists, 220+ countries; ongoing updates reduce stale hits.
- Fast, stable API — Webhooks, ~250 ms calls, 99.95%+ uptime ease real-time screening.
- Clear entry pricing — Public Starter plan at €990/month for 100 entities; enterprise adds TM, CRA, SSO, rules engine.
Think twice if
- Not full IDV — Focus is sanctions/PEP/adverse media/monitoring; most teams pair with a separate doc/biometric KYC tool.
- Some UX asks — Users want richer report filtering in places.
- Cost perception — G2 labels perceived cost as “$$$$$”; budget accordingly.
