Compare Complead

Not at all, and if any vendor replies in the affirmative they are in fact selling rather than providing help. The appropriate platform will vary according to your obligations, your volume, whether screening takes place inline within the payment process or at the onboarding stage, and how much of the work you wish to automate. What differs from vendor to vendor is their architecture and operating model, not who has the most features.

Certain vendors license risk data and expect your systems to act upon it, while others carry out the decision-making process and the workflow and then feed the data into it. The difference is important since it determines where your integration work will have to be focused and who is responsible for the audit record. Complead belongs to the second category and is able to read in data from third parties as well.

You can measure rather than be told on six points: the coverage for the regimes required by your licence, the false positive rate applicable to your own names, the difference between real time and batch processing, API quality, the realistic time to live for your stack, and the total cost at the volume you expect. All the rest are matters of preference.

Take the same sample and have each system process it. Use your own names, including those that your present tool misidentifies, and a group that you know should match. After that, compare the four results: which items matched, which ones were missed, how many reviews were generated, and what the audit export shows. The demonstration using the vendor's data gives you no information about your own portfolio.

Since the figure varies according to the portfolio, the threshold, and the definition of an alert used by the vendor, a rate calculated on a different customer base does not relate to your situation. The only figure that is comparable is the one obtained from your own data using the threshold that you actually apply.

The way prices are set usually takes into account the amount of screening you carry out, the products you turn on and the data that you licence. Find out what occurs when volume increases, whether there is an extra charge for monitoring compared to onboarding screening, and what the cost will be for rescreening your current customer base; these three answers account for most of the difference between the quotes.

API based platforms are usually live in days to a few weeks; suites built around batch processing and on-premise deployment often take months. The variable is rarely the vendor, it is how many of your internal systems are in scope. Ask each vendor for a timeline that names your systems, not a general one.

That's true in many cases. When you have a data licence that is acceptable to you, the data can be input into the platform together with its own sources and then be assessed using the same set of rules. This is important in situations where what you want to replace is the workflow and not the data.

Before you agree with any vendor, find out which of your data will be returned and in what format, whether the audit trail for closed cases can be transferred to you, how long the vendor will keep a copy after you've terminated the agreement, and whether there is an extra charge for an export. Since there is a retention requirement associated with compliance history, a platform that does not allow you to leave it cleanly constitutes a regulatory issue not a commercial one.

The system is suitable for organisations that want onboarding, screening, monitoring and investigation to be carried out on a single platform using a single risk score, and also for those replacing a range of tools in which each one maintains its own version of the customer record. It does not provide document or biometric identity verification since these services are handled by a specialist provider, and it is not engaged in data licensing. Should your requirement be for a data feed to be supplied to systems which you already have, let us know as early as possible and we will then advise you as to whether or not that matches us.