Choosing a sanctions screening solution is not simply a matter of verifying that a vendor has lists and a matching engine. It is essential to understand what data is being used, how matches are detected, how many alerts will need to be analyzed, and what evidence can be produced several months later.
Compliance teams must also take into account several distinct regulatory frameworks. The AML-CFT includes, in particular, specific due diligence obligations regarding politically exposed persons (PEP). International sanctions and asset freeze measures, meanwhile, fall under specific legal frameworks, even though these controls are often integrated into the same compliance processes and tools.
In this article, “screening” primarily refers to the process of matching individuals or entities against sensitive databases. The filtering of financial data streams or messages is a separate use case, even though the matching technologies share some common features.
For AP Solutions IO, a good consultation should therefore not focus on comparing sales promises but rather on measurable capabilities: coverage, configuration, explainability, integration, and traceability.
Ten criteria are used to organize this comparison.
Why use a checklist to choose sanctions screening software?
Two software vendors can offer fuzzy logic, portfolio rebalancing, an API, and an alert management interface, yet produce very different results.
The mere presence of a feature does not, on its own, provide any indication of the depth of its configuration options, the quality of the data that feeds it, its impact on your portfolio, or the workload it will generate for analysts.
A framework therefore allows us to move from the question “Does this feature exist?” to more useful questions:
- How does it work?
- Based on what data?
- At what configuration level?
- What results can be measured?
- What information is stored?
- Which elements are contractually binding?
This is the approach we take at AP Solutions IO : the choice of an engine must be evaluated based on concrete criteria, even when several competing solutions are being considered.
The 10 Criteria for Comparing Screening Solutions
| No. | Criterion | What to Consider | A Good Question to Ask |
| 1 | Standards Covered | Sanctions, asset freezes, PEP , and other relevant data | Which standards are actually included? |
| 2 | Data Freshness | Timeframe for Incorporating Changes | How are updates integrated? |
| 3 | Data Sources | Data providers, data depth, and data quality | What sources were used? |
| 4 | Match Engine | Homonyms, aliases, variants, transliterations | How are reconciliations calculated? |
| 5 | Reducing False Positives | Criteria, weightings, and adjustment options | To what extent can the engine be configured? |
| 6 | Explainability | Understanding the Result Produced | Can we determine why the alert was triggered? |
| 7 | Deployment and Integration | Portal, SaaS, API, IT Architecture | How does the engine integrate with the processes? |
| 8 | Hosting and Data | Location, Security, Contractors | Where and how is the data processed? |
| 9 | Traceability and Audit Trail | History of Actions, Decisions, and Settings | What can be reconstructed after several months? |
| 10 | Support and Updates | Support, Versions, Maintenance | How does the publisher provide ongoing support for the solution? |
The weighting of these criteria depends on the industry, volume, IT infrastructure, and risk profile. Our content on the essential features of a compliance solution provides further insight to complement this initial framework.
Criteria 1 through 3: What data is used for the screening?
Before evaluating the technology, we must examine its raw material.
1. Verify which standards are actually covered
The term “international coverage ” is too broad to allow for a comparison.
The proposed data sources must be precisely identified: European or international sanctions, asset freeze measures, PEP, immediate family members, and individuals known to be closely associated with them, as well as, as needed, country risk data or reputational information.
Not all of this data is based on the same regulatory framework. It must therefore be evaluated based on the organization’s actual scope of control.
With regard to sanctions, it may also be necessary to verify that legal persons, affiliated entities, vessels, aircraft, or other items designated under the relevant regimes have been taken into account.
2. Check the recency of the data
A relevant source loses much of its value if it is not updated quickly enough.
The question should focus on the actual update process: How often does the publisher retrieve the new data? How is it integrated? At what point does it become available for use by the engine?
When it comes to sanctions and asset freezes, this responsiveness is particularly important, as the relevant agencies must be able to process new designations with the necessary speed.
3. Identify data sources and providers
A screening solution can use its own databases, public repositories, specialized providers, or a combination of multiple sources.
It is therefore important to understand:
- which sources are used;
- which populations they cover;
- how the data is enriched;
- How are any duplicates handled?;
- how the publisher ensures the continuity of this coverage.
AP Solutions IO relies in particular on partnerships with Dow Jones and Acuris/ION Analytics for data related to the PEP, sanctions, and AML. We thus supplement our detection technology with specialized data providers offering global coverage.
Criteria 4 through 6: How do you evaluate the quality of the engine?
Once the data has been identified, you need to test how it is reconciled with your portfolio. The best way to do this is to use cases that are representative of the data your teams will actually be processing.
4. Check for homonyms, aliases, and transliterations
Transliteration involves transcribing a name from one writing system into another. A single Arabic, Cyrillic, or Asian name can thus have several valid Latin spellings.
An engine that is too strict may miss certain variants. Conversely, an engine that is too permissive may produce an excessive number of homonyms.
The question, then, is not whether the editor supports fuzzy logic, but how that logic responds to variations in your data.
For AP Solutions IO, this level of granularity is at the heart of the engine: AP Scan can detect matches despite spelling approximations while using additional information to reduce irrelevant matches.
5. Evaluate ways to reduce false positives
A false positive is a match that appears relevant at the time of detection but is ultimately ruled out upon further analysis.
The right metric isn't just a stated percentage. It's important to understand what data the engine can rely on and what parameters the organization can adjust.
Date of birth, country, nationality, identifiers, variations in names, or other information can help distinguish between two people with similar names.
With AP Solutions IO, our engine offers more than 90 configuration options. Depending on the configuration and use case, our technology can reduce false positives by up to 98%.
This result should not be interpreted as a uniform guarantee. Performance depends on the input data, benchmarks, scope, and settings used.
Our guide to methods for identifying and reducing false positives delves specifically into this balance between noise reduction and detection capability.
6. Verify the interpretability of the result
A score is only truly useful if the team understands what led to it.
During the demonstration, you should therefore ask to review an alert and identify the factors that contributed to the match.
This requirement aligns directly withAP Solutions IO’s philosophy. Our Glass Box Augmented Intelligence is designed to maintain explainable and traceable logic: the analyst must be able to understand the factors that led to an alert, rather than simply receiving an opaque decision.
Our content on the auditability and explainability of AML systems explores this topic in greater depth.
Criteria 7 and 8: How does the solution integrate into your architecture?
Even an excellent detection system can lose much of its value if its implementation disrupts business processes.
7. Examine the integration method
SaaS,APIs, andon-premises solutions do not refer to exactly the same thing.
SaaS primarily refers to a method of hosting and operating a solution. An API serves as a means of communication between the solution and existing applications. A SaaS solution can therefore be accessed through a portal or called directly via an API.
Some useful questions are:
- Which applications should trigger the check?
- What data must be submitted?
- Where should the result appear?
- How does an alert reach the compliance team?
- What kind of integration effort is required on the IT side?
AP Solutions IO offers SaaS and full API solutions, featuring a web interface and an open architecture. Our technology and integration capabilities enable, in particular, calls from an enterprise system, a CRM, or KYC and KYS environments.
8. Verify Data Hosting and Governance
It is necessary to know the location of the data, the service providers involved in its processing, the security measures, and the conditions for data recovery.
For financial institutions subject to DORA, which has been in effect since January 17, 2025, contractual arrangements relating to ICT services provided by third-party service providers must, in particular, be recorded in an information register.
The requirements for contracts with certain ICT service providers also cover various aspects such as location, data access, subcontracting, or termination conditions, depending on the service in question.
It is therefore important to distinguish the DORA register from the contractual provisions required by the regulation, rather than presenting them as a single document.
AP Solutions IO hosts the data processed by its solutions in France. This decision is in line with our approach to data control, security, and sovereignty, though we do not claim that hosting in France alone guarantees compliance or performance.
Criteria 9 and 10: What remains after the audit?
A solution shouldn't just detect issues. It should also make it possible to understand what was done and by whom.
9. Actually test the audit trail
It's a good idea to ask the publisher to show you how to find a previous control.
Depending on the situation, it may be necessary to locate, among other things:
- the date of the inspection;
- the data or reference systems used;
- the alert received;
- actions taken;
- the user who took action;
- the decision and the rationale behind it;
- the available contextual information.
AP Scan provides systematic traceability of actions taken. For AP Solutions IO, the audit trail is not a feature added after detection—it is an integral part of how we design a solution that compliance teams can use effectively.
However, you should review the retention policies applicable to your organization and how the solution enables you to implement them.
10. Review the platform and the development cycle
The life cycle of a software application does not end when it goes live.
It is important to consider the availability of support, the languages offered, the level of expertise, as well as how the vendor develops its product.
This concept should be distinguished from the "freshness" of the lists. The former refers to software versions and features; the latter refers to the data used in the screening process.
With AP Solutions IO, we roll out a new version of the application roughly every four months. In SaaS mode, these updates are made available without requiring the customer to manage the infrastructure upgrade themselves.
Is the license price enough to compare two solutions?
No. The actual cost includes several additional items.
In particular, the following should be taken into account:
- integration into the information system;
- initial setup and calibration;
- the workload associated with handling alerts;
- resources allocated to development;
- the support;
- technical operation, when the customer is responsible for it.
An engine that appears less expensive to purchase but generates many more false positives may require more analysts to be on the job throughout the duration of the contract.
Conversely, a more integrated architecture may require a higher initial investment but can reduce certain manual tasks.
Comparing the total cost therefore requires considering the same time frame and scope.
How can you compare publishers in practice?
The scale is only useful if the candidates are placed under comparable conditions.
Ask the same questions
It is best to ask the same questions of the various publishers and keep their responses in writing.
Next, we must make a clear distinction between:
- what the solution is technically capable of doing;
- what is included in the proposed offer;
- which is the subject of a specific configuration;
- which constitutes a contractual obligation.
This method reduces the weight given to a particularly successful demonstration in the final decision.
Test using representative data
The test must include situations that are truly challenging for the organization: common names, incomplete data, spelling variations, transliterations, or other cases that have historically caused issues.
Next, measure:
- the number of alerts generated;
- the relevance of the comparisons;
- the ability to understand the results;
- the time required to analyze an alert;
- the ease of retrieving and documenting a decision.
At AP Solutions IO, we believe that an engine should be evaluated based on real-world portfolio constraints, not just on a pre-prepared demonstration.
Assign users to handle alerts
A technically advanced solution can become difficult to implement if the interface or processing workflow is poorly designed.
In particular, analysts can evaluate the clarity of the information, the number of steps required to classify an alert, and how easy it is to retrieve a case's history.
Their return thus completes the return of the compliance, legal, procurement, and information technology departments.
How does AP Solutions IO meet the criteria in this selection grid?
These ten criteria can be used to compare an international software provider, a legacy solution, or a French RegTech company such as AP Solutions IO.
Our positioning is based, in particular, on Glass Box Augmented Intelligence, an engine with over 90 configurable criteria, data partnerships with Dow Jones and Acuris/ION Analytics, a SaaS and full API architecture, systematic traceability, and data hosting in France.
For screening sensitive individuals and entities, AP Scan enables the detection of sanctions, asset freezes, PEP , and reputational risk. For filtering transactions against international sanctions and embargoes, AP Filter serves another purpose within the suite.
The goal is not simply to check off all ten boxes on a checklist. For AP Solutions IO, a compliance solution must enable users to understand what it detects, why it detects it, and how that decision can be traced and justified.
To compare these features with your own criteria, you can explore the various solutions offered by AP Solutions IO or discuss your screening project with our team.
