Loading
Heads of compliance and MLROs ask AI assistants which tools handle transaction monitoring, sanctions screening and KYC for a firm their size. We work on what those answers say about your product, and whether they name it at all.
Updated
“Which sanctions screening and transaction monitoring tool works by API for an embedded finance startup in the EU?”
“Vendor A and Vendor B offer API-first screening with EU data hosting. Vendor C adds case management but suits larger teams…”
Placeholders, not real vendors or results.
Buyers type a few words into a search box. In an AI assistant they describe their situation: the regulators they answer to, the countries they operate in, the size of the team, the systems their data lives in. Each detail narrows the shortlist, and each one is a fact the answer has to get right about you.
In a search box
In an AI assistant
Example questions, written to show the shape. Vendor names are placeholders.
The paid audit and every monthly check record how each engine describes you, not only whether it names you. For a financial compliance tool, these are the details a buyer compares.
Transaction monitoring, sanctions and PEP screening, KYC, KYB and adverse media. Buyers ask for the check in front of them, and an answer that lists only one of yours drops you from the others.
The jurisdictions you cover, the lists you screen against and where data is held. Buyers name their regions in the question.
How alerts are scored, tuned and explained. A small team asks how much review work your output creates.
API, core banking and payment platforms, and case management. Embedded finance buyers judge the API as closely as the checks.
A fintech on its first licence wants screening live in days; a bank with an established program wants to replace a system without losing history. The answer should say which of them you serve.
Engines that search the web show their sources. For your own questions, the baseline records which of these each engine used, so the work goes where your answers come from.
The same four steps run on every retainer. The plan you pick sets how many questions we track and how much work ships each term.
We build the questions heads of compliance and MLROs ask, with you: 100 or 150 depending on the plan, mostly unbranded, grouped into clusters by check, region and stage. You approve them before anything runs.
Every question runs on ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot and Google (AI Overviews, AI Mode and Gemini). We record who gets named, how each engine describes the checks you run and the regions you cover, and which pages it cites.
A written estimate of what the scope can move by day 90, as ranges per cluster and engine. The scope is locked with it.
Comparison and alternatives pages, revamps of product and jurisdiction pages you already have, corrected review profiles, placements on the pages engines cite, and community work. Each month end is measured against the forecast.
If we work with one AML and screening vendor, we don't take its direct competitor, so we are never chasing the same citations for two of you.
Nobody controls what the engines say. You get a measured baseline, a written forecast and a monthly check that shows a flat month as flat.
Compliance buyers check every claim, and nothing about a regulation ships unless your own experts have signed it off. We interview your product lead at the start, then for 30 minutes a month, and you approve every brief.
Example questions are illustrative.
It is how often, and how accurately, AI assistants such as ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Microsoft Copilot and Google's AI features name your product when compliance leads ask which AML, screening or KYC tool fits their firm. It covers being on the shortlist and being described correctly: the checks you run, the regions you cover, how you handle false positives and how you integrate.
Send your website, your category in a sentence and up to five competitors. If we think the free audit will tell you something, it arrives 48 business hours after we confirm.