Best sanctions screening software in 2026

Vendor marketing is not comparable across sites, so this survey applies five buying criteria identically to every product. Each one is a question to put to a vendor directly — the answers are what separate tools once the headline claims are set aside.

1. C.01

   Coverage

   Ask ·Which sanctions regimes, PEP data and criminal or wanted lists are screened on every check — and which are separate feeds you have to buy?

   Headline jurisdiction counts hide the real gaps. Sanctions and PEP are near-universal; criminal and wanted-person lists are not, and adverse media is often a different product entirely. Ask for the source register, not the count.

2. C.02

   API & batch

   Ask ·Is there a documented REST API, and can you screen a file of thousands of names without writing code?

   Most programmes need both: an API for onboarding in the product, and a bulk upload for periodic portfolio sweeps. A vendor strong on one is not automatically strong on the other.

3. C.03

   Ongoing monitoring

   Ask ·After onboarding, who re-screens the customer when the lists change — and what does that cost per entity per year?

   A one-off check is a point in time; risk is continuous. Monitoring pricing is where per-check economics quietly break, so model it on your real book, not on a single check.

4. C.04

   Audit trail

   Ask ·Can you reproduce a screening exactly as it stood on the date it ran, after the underlying lists have changed?

   An examiner asks what you knew and when. A report that recalculates against today's data cannot answer that. Point-in-time evidence can.

5. C.05

   Pricing transparency

   Ask ·Is the price on the website, or does it require a sales call and an annual commitment?

   Published pricing is not automatically cheaper — but it lets you model total cost before you commit, and it tends to correlate with self-serve onboarding.

Every vendor against every criterion, in the same words. Scroll horizontally to read the full matrix.

“Not published” = the detail was not stated in the vendor's public materials at the time of writing. ScreenVeritAI's full source register is published on our coverage page (as of June 2026).

We publish this survey, so here is our own entry stated plainly rather than implied. Each point below is checkable on the page it links to — and the honest limit is that ScreenVeritAI is screening-only: no document or biometric identity verification, and no transaction monitoring.

1. 01

   ScreenVeritAI

   This is us

   EU-hosted, criminal watchlists by default, point-in-time evidence

   ScreenVeritAI is an EU-hosted (Finland) AML platform built around four screening products: a deterministic Quick Check that sends no data to any AI model, an Adverse Media Check, a Full Search that resolves aliases and transliterations and then reviews every match with explainable AI, and a Deep Research Report. Sanctions, a dedicated PEP domain of 750,000+ records from 134 public sources, and official criminal and wanted lists are screened together on every check — not sold as three feeds. Every screening is stored as a point-in-time snapshot and exported as a PDF that reproduces the result as of the date it ran, and pricing is published per check with no platform fee.

   Trade-off ·It is screening-only: no document or biometric identity verification, and no transaction monitoring. If you want KYC onboarding and AML from one vendor, an IDV suite fits better. It is also a younger product than the enterprise incumbents, without their analyst-relations footprint.

   Coverage

   Sanctions (OFAC, EU, UN, UK and more) + PEP (750,000+ records, 134 sources) + criminal and wanted lists — all on every check

   API & batch

   REST API v1 (screening, batch, key management) plus CSV/XLSX batch upload in the portal

   Ongoing monitoring

   Continuous re-screening included with monthly plans; scheduled runs bill at the normal check rate — no separate watch fee

   Audit trail

   Point-in-time snapshot per screening, exported as a PDF and never recalculated when lists change

   Pricing transparency

   Published per check: Quick Check €0.79 · Adverse Media €1.49 · Full Search €5.90 · Deep Research €14.90 · no platform fee

   Best for · EU teams that need data residency, criminal-watchlist coverage and explainable, auditable results.

   See how ScreenVeritAI screens
2. 02

   ComplyAdvantage

   Enterprise-scale, AI-native financial-crime intelligence

   ComplyAdvantage markets itself as an AI-native financial-crime platform, splitting its offering into risk-intelligence data and workflow apps. It targets larger financial institutions that want real-time risk intelligence, alert resolution at scale and regulatory defensibility built into an established enterprise product, with case management and analytics designed for large alert queues.

   Trade-off ·Pricing is not published and buying means an enterprise sales cycle and, typically, an annual commitment. That is a heavy entry point for a small compliance team, and it makes total cost hard to model before you talk to sales.

   Coverage

   Sanctions, PEP, adverse media and watchlist risk data; exact source register not published

   API & batch

   API plus workflow apps; batch specifics not published

   Ongoing monitoring

   Ongoing monitoring is a core part of the platform

   Audit trail

   Case management and alert-resolution records positioned for regulatory defensibility

   Pricing transparency

   Not published — enterprise quote

   Best for · Larger FIs wanting an established, enterprise-grade AI-native platform.

3. 03

   Castellum.AI

   Quantified false-positive reduction, explainable and audit-ready

   Castellum.AI leads with hard, above-the-fold statistics and pairs every accuracy claim with an "explainable, audit-ready" statement, backed by a branded matching algorithm. It publishes entry-level pricing openly, making it approachable for teams that want measured false-positive reduction without an enterprise sales cycle.

   Trade-off ·It is US-based and does not publish an EU data-residency position, and criminal or wanted-list screening is not presented as a separate default domain. Accuracy statistics are vendor-published, so ask how they were measured on data like yours.

   Coverage

   Sanctions, PEP and watchlist data with counts published on its own site

   API & batch

   Screening API; batch specifics not published here

   Ongoing monitoring

   Ongoing monitoring referenced; per-entity terms not published

   Audit trail

   Matching positioned as explainable and audit-ready; point-in-time snapshots not published

   Pricing transparency

   Entry-level pricing published openly

   Best for · Teams that want quantified FP reduction with explainability and public entry pricing.

4. 04

   sanctions.io

   Simple, developer-friendly screening API with cost calculator

   sanctions.io positions itself as "AML Screening Made Simple". It offers a developer-friendly API with concrete transliteration handling, named customer testimonials and an interactive pricing calculator so teams can model cost before committing. Its orientation is US-centric.

   Trade-off ·It is an API, not a compliance workflow: there is no published EU data-residency guarantee, no dedicated criminal-watchlist domain and no point-in-time evidence artefact. Subscription tiers mean you pay for headroom you may not use.

   Coverage

   Sanctions, PEP and watchlist data via API; source register not published here

   API & batch

   API-first product with strong transliteration handling; batch endpoint not published here

   Ongoing monitoring

   Not published

   Audit trail

   Not published

   Pricing transparency

   Subscription tiers with a public interactive calculator

   Best for · US-based developers wanting a simple, well-documented screening API.

   Compare ScreenVeritAI vs sanctions.io
5. 05

   Dilisense

   Free instant check and very low per-call pricing

   Dilisense, a Swiss provider, makes a free instant check its homepage and publishes some of the lowest per-call pricing in the market (roughly €0.01–0.10 per call). It uses per-regime programmatic pages and repeats a consistent trust-number set across the site, making it a low-friction choice for high-volume lookups.

   Trade-off ·The low per-call rate buys a name lookup, not a compliance record: criminal watchlists, point-in-time evidence and ongoing monitoring are not published, and the company is Swiss without a stated EU data-residency guarantee.

   Coverage

   Sanctions and PEP with per-regime coverage pages; source count not published

   API & batch

   Per-call API screening; bulk upload not published

   Ongoing monitoring

   Not published

   Audit trail

   Not published

   Pricing transparency

   Per-call pricing published inline (approx. €0.01–0.10 / call)

   Best for · High-volume, price-sensitive sanctions and PEP name lookups.

   Compare ScreenVeritAI vs Dilisense
6. 06

   NameScan

   Consumer-simple prepaid scan packs and free check pages

   NameScan is an Australian provider with a deliberately simple, consumer-friendly experience: prepaid pay-per-scan packs (roughly £0.94–1.40 per scan), several free single-check landing pages and a large stated customer base. It is easy to start with for occasional or individual checks.

   Trade-off ·Simplicity is the ceiling as well as the appeal: no published REST API, no tiered matching or match reasoning, no EU data-residency statement, and reports rather than reproducible point-in-time evidence.

   Coverage

   Sanctions and PEP scanning; source count not published

   API & batch

   Portal scans and prepaid packs; REST API not published

   Ongoing monitoring

   Not published

   Audit trail

   Downloadable scan reports; point-in-time snapshot model not published

   Pricing transparency

   Prepaid PAYG packs (approx. £0.94–1.40 / scan)

   Best for · Occasional or individual checks, and teams in the APAC region.

   Compare ScreenVeritAI vs NameScan
7. 07

   ComplyCube

   Full IDV/KYC platform with AML on top

   ComplyCube is a full identity-verification platform — document and biometric identity checks plus AML screening — with public per-check pricing and a consistent, reusable page-and-FAQ structure. Its scope is broader than AML, making it a fit when you need to verify identity as well as screen names.

   Trade-off ·Screening is one module inside an IDV suite rather than the product, so tiered matching, match reasoning, criminal-watchlist depth and point-in-time evidence are not what the platform leads with. You may also pay for IDV capability you do not need.

   Coverage

   Sanctions, PEP and watchlist data inside a broader IDV suite; source register not published here

   API & batch

   IDV and AML integrations; screening batch specifics not published here

   Ongoing monitoring

   Not published

   Audit trail

   Not published as reproducible point-in-time evidence

   Pricing transparency

   Public per-check pricing across the IDV + AML suite

   Best for · Teams needing KYC identity verification alongside AML screening.

   Compare ScreenVeritAI vs ComplyCube
8. 08

   OpenSanctions

   Transparent open data with exact, timestamped counts

   OpenSanctions is an open-data project that leads with exact live counts and daily update timestamps, endpoint-level pricing and a transparency-as-trust ethos, including dozens of per-question FAQ pages. It suits teams that want raw, auditable open sanctions and PEP data and self-serve queries rather than a managed workflow.

   Trade-off ·It is data, not a compliance programme. Matching thresholds, alert triage, case files, evidence PDFs and reviewer workflow are yours to build and defend — which is engineering time most small compliance teams do not have.

   Coverage

   Open sanctions and PEP data with exact live counts and daily update timestamps

   API & batch

   Self-serve API endpoints and bulk dataset downloads

   Ongoing monitoring

   Datasets update daily; managed alerting workflow is not the product

   Audit trail

   Dated, versioned datasets you can archive yourself; no case file or evidence export

   Pricing transparency

   Endpoint-level pricing published openly

   Best for · Teams wanting transparent open data and self-serve, endpoint-level access.

9. 09

   iDenfy

   Identity verification with add-on sanctions screening

   iDenfy pairs identity verification with AML, leaning on third-party review badges and a supported-databases reference page. Its PAYG pricing puts sanctions screening as an add-on to identity verification, which fits teams that primarily need IDV and want screening bundled in.

   Trade-off ·Because screening is an add-on, its depth is not the headline: match explainability, criminal-watchlist coverage and point-in-time evidence are not published. Buying screening usually means buying the IDV product first.

   Coverage

   Supported-databases reference page; source count not published

   API & batch

   IDV-first integration; screening API and batch specifics not published here

   Ongoing monitoring

   Not published

   Audit trail

   Not published

   Pricing transparency

   PAYG, with sanctions screening priced as an add-on to identity verification

   Best for · Teams that primarily need identity verification with add-on sanctions screening.

Where we publish a full side-by-side — capability table, verdict columns and FAQ — for a single vendor.

• 01ScreenVeritAI vs DilisenseDilisense — low published per-call pricing and a free instant check on the homepage.
• 02ScreenVeritAI vs NameScanNameScan — consumer-simple prepaid scan packs and free single-check landing pages.
• 03ScreenVeritAI vs sanctions.iosanctions.io — US-market fit with an interactive pricing calculator and a developer-friendly API.
• 04ScreenVeritAI vs ComplyCubeComplyCube — a full identity-verification (IDV/KYC) suite that reaches well beyond AML screening.

Q.01

What is the best sanctions screening software?

There is no single best tool — the right choice depends on your priorities. Enterprises often pick ComplyAdvantage; teams wanting quantified false-positive reduction look at Castellum.AI; developers wanting a simple API consider sanctions.io; price-sensitive, high-volume lookups suit Dilisense; occasional checks suit NameScan; identity-verification-first teams choose ComplyCube or iDenfy; open-data users prefer OpenSanctions; and EU-regulated teams that want criminal-watchlist coverage and explainable, auditable results consider ScreenVeritAI. Score any shortlist on the same five criteria — coverage, API and batch access, ongoing monitoring, audit trail and pricing transparency — rather than on headline claims.

Q.02

How should you evaluate sanctions screening software?

Use five criteria and apply them identically to every vendor. Coverage: which regimes, PEP data and criminal or wanted lists are screened on every check, and which are separate feeds. API and batch: is there a documented REST API and a no-code bulk upload for portfolio sweeps. Ongoing monitoring: who re-screens the customer when lists change, and what it costs per entity per year. Audit trail: can you reproduce a screening exactly as it stood on the date it ran. Pricing transparency: is the price published, or does it require a sales call and an annual commitment. Then run the same twenty real names through each shortlisted tool and compare the matches, the false positives and the exportable record.

Q.03

Which providers deliver the most accurate sanctions screening?

Every vendor publishes an accuracy or false-positive statistic, and none of them are measured on your data — so treat them as a starting point, not a ranking. What separates tools in practice is name handling and explainability: whether aliases, transliterations and name-order variants are resolved before matching, and whether each match comes with reasoning you can read. Castellum.AI leads on published false-positive reduction figures, sanctions.io publishes concrete transliteration examples, and ComplyAdvantage applies enterprise-scale matching and alert resolution. ScreenVeritAI expands the query for aliases and transliterations in Full Search and then has an AI review reason about every match, flagging likely false positives with an explanation you can export — never a bare score. The only reliable test is your own: run a benchmark set that includes known-clear near-namesakes and known-true hits, and compare both misses and noise.

Q.04

Which tools offer the best batch and API sanctions screening?

Most programmes need both, and they are different capabilities. sanctions.io is API-first and well documented, with a calculator for modelling call volume. OpenSanctions offers self-serve endpoints and bulk dataset downloads if you are willing to build the workflow yourself. ComplyAdvantage integrates via API into enterprise workflow apps. NameScan and iDenfy do not publish a screening REST API in their public materials. ScreenVeritAI ships REST API v1 covering screening, batch and key management, plus a CSV or XLSX upload in the portal so a compliance analyst can sweep thousands of names without writing code — the same screening engine, the same evidence output, whichever route you use. When comparing, ask specifically about batch size limits, asynchronous job handling and whether batch results carry the same audit record as single checks.

Q.05

Which providers offer the best dashboards and reporting for sanctions screening metrics?

Enterprise platforms lead here: ComplyAdvantage builds alert-resolution analytics and case management for large queues, and Castellum.AI foregrounds measurable false-positive metrics. API-first products such as sanctions.io and OpenSanctions expect you to build reporting on top of their output. ScreenVeritAI keeps a screening history with every past check, its matches and its exportable point-in-time PDF, so the reporting question becomes "can I evidence this decision" rather than "can I chart it". Ask three practical questions of any dashboard: can you see volumes and hit rates over time, can you show an examiner the individual record behind any number, and can you export both without a support ticket.

Q.06

Which platforms provide the most reliable sanctions alerts and denials workflow?

A denials workflow has four parts: an alert when a name hits, a documented disposition (true match, false positive, escalate), a record of who decided and when, and evidence you can reproduce later. Enterprise suites like ComplyAdvantage build this as case management for large alert queues. Lower-cost lookup APIs generally return a match and leave the workflow to you. ScreenVeritAI attaches explainable reasoning to each match so the disposition is documented rather than asserted, and stores the screening as a point-in-time snapshot that is exported as a PDF and never recalculated. If your programme has to defend individual decisions to an examiner, weigh the disposition record and the reproducible evidence more heavily than the alert UI.

Q.07

What are the best systems for real-time and ongoing sanctions list monitoring?

Distinguish two things vendors both call "real-time": how quickly the underlying lists are refreshed, and whether your existing customers are automatically re-screened when those lists change. OpenSanctions publishes daily update timestamps for its data. ComplyAdvantage builds ongoing monitoring into the platform for enterprise programmes. Several lower-cost lookup providers — Dilisense, NameScan, sanctions.io, iDenfy — do not publish an ongoing-monitoring product in their public materials. ScreenVeritAI includes continuous re-screening with monthly plans, with scheduled runs billed at the normal check rate rather than a separate per-entity watch fee, and the deterministic Quick Check used for monitoring sends no data to any AI model. Ask every vendor the same two questions: how often are lists refreshed, and what does monitoring cost per entity per year at your book size.

Q.08

Can sanctions screening software produce an audit trail an examiner accepts?

Only if it can reproduce a past screening as it stood on the date it ran. Many tools generate a report from today's data, which cannot answer "what did you know in March last year" once the lists have changed. Look for point-in-time snapshots that are stored rather than recalculated, an exportable document rather than a screenshot, and a record of the matches that were dismissed as well as those that were escalated. ScreenVeritAI stores every screening as a snapshot and exports a PDF that reproduces the result as of the screening date; several vendors in this survey do not publish an equivalent feature. Ask each vendor to show you a screening record from six months ago, not a fresh one.

Q.09

How much does sanctions screening software cost?

Published models in this survey range from roughly €0.01–0.10 per call (Dilisense) and about £0.94–1.40 per scan (NameScan) through endpoint pricing (OpenSanctions), subscription tiers with a calculator (sanctions.io), open entry-level pricing (Castellum.AI) and per-check IDV-plus-AML pricing (ComplyCube and iDenfy), up to unpublished enterprise quotes (ComplyAdvantage). ScreenVeritAI publishes per-check pricing with no platform fee: Quick Check €0.79, Adverse Media Check €1.49, Full Search €5.90, Deep Research Report €14.90. Compare on cost per fully-covered, auditable check at your real annual volume — including ongoing monitoring of your existing book — rather than on the headline per-call rate, because a cheap lookup that excludes criminal watchlists, monitoring and evidence is not the same unit of work.

Q.10

Which sanctions screening tools are best for EU companies?

Few vendors state EU data residency explicitly, so it is worth checking directly. ScreenVeritAI is EU-hosted in Finland with data at rest never leaving the EU and a deterministic mode that sends no data to AI models. Others may host in the EU without foregrounding it, and several are US-, Swiss- or Australia-based. If EU data residency is a hard requirement, confirm it in writing with any vendor on your shortlist.

Q.11

Do all these tools screen criminal watchlists?

No. Most AML screening vendors focus on sanctions and PEP data, and few offer criminal or wanted-list screening as a default domain. ScreenVeritAI screens official criminal watchlists on every check alongside sanctions and PEP. If criminal exposure matters to your risk model, ask each vendor whether criminal watchlists are included by default or sold as a separate feed.

Q.12

Is sanctions screening software worth it versus checking the lists manually?

Manual checking of the OFAC, EU, UN and UK lists is workable for a handful of names a month and stops scaling almost immediately after that. The failure modes are predictable: transliterated and aliased names are missed, PEP and criminal-list coverage is skipped because the lists live elsewhere, nobody re-checks existing customers when a list changes, and there is no reproducible record of what was checked on which date. Software is worth it at the point where any of those four becomes a real risk — which for most regulated firms is well below a hundred checks a month, given published per-check pricing across this survey starts in cents.

• 01Sanctions screeningEvery major sanctions jurisdiction — OFAC, EU, UN, UK and more — plus what a screening record contains.
• 02Quick Check & Full SearchThe deterministic no-AI mode, and the alias, transliteration and match-review layer Full Search adds.
• 03API & batch integrationREST API v1 for screening, batch and key management — plus CSV/XLSX bulk upload with no code.
• 04PricingPer-check pricing, published in full, with no monthly platform fee and no annual commitment.
• 05PEP screening750,000+ structured PEP records from 134 public sources, returned on every check.
• 06Criminal watchlist screeningOfficial criminal and wanted lists — the domain most often missing from competitor materials.