Transparency alternatives to InScope-AML
Other Fraud prevention and identity vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at InScope-AML. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 45 that differ from InScope-AML on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
InScope-AML has 8 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at InScope-AML” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at InScope-AML | Found at InScope-AML, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socuresocure.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Socure | 52/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | nothing | Compare |
| IDnowidnow.ioSee also Transparency alternatives to IDnow | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Sardinesardine.aiSee also Transparency alternatives to Sardine | 43/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Feedzaifeedzai.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Feedzai | 39/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Public pricing | Compare |
| Incodeincode.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Incode | 26/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Truliootrulioo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Trulioo | 26/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Certifications named, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | Compare |
| hCaptchahcaptcha.comSee also Transparency alternatives to hCaptcha | 52/100 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | nothing | Compare |
| Alloyalloy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Alloy | 39/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| iDenfyidenfy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to iDenfy | 39/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| PXL Visionpxl-vision.comSee also Transparency alternatives to PXL Vision | 35/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Signifydsignifyd.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Signifyd | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Veriffveriff.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Veriff | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.