The Brief· October 30→
In one line

The agent got the last click. Nasdaq Verafin let its agentic analysts close alerts with no analyst signing off and Carta let fund teams release capital from inside Claude, while Kore.ai, Argos and Spektr fenced the model in at the level of a single field. Socure and Fingerprint started naming the agents at the door, Shufti became the third vendor since late September to sell Know Your Agent, and three wealth vendors turned the meeting note into a new account. Read the issue →

An Independent Reference for Financial Services AI

Evaluating AI vendors in financial services, on the record.

AI FinTech Index is an independently maintained reference where banks, insurers, and financial institutions find and compare artificial intelligence vendors across risk, compliance, and operational categories. It publishes independent ratings of AI vendors for banks and insurers, and independently rates every vendor it covers from public evidence alone. Every record carries a verification date. Every figure carries its source. No vendor pays for placement.

Last Index UpdateOctober 20, 2026
Browse the vendor directory →
Change Wire
Full change log →
2026-10-30
Fenergo added a twice daily option for Ongoing Screening. An enabled client keeps its existing daily run and gets a second run 12 hours later, so a sanctions list update issued after the first run is picked up about 12 hours later instead of on the next working day. Fenergo turns it on at a client's request, and clients who do not need it keep the once a day run.
Medium
2026-10-29
Insurity released Dorado, led by its Ratio Content & Rating Engine, an API first engine that turns machine readable bureau rates, rules, forms and statistical codes into production insurance logic and, Insurity says, can rate thousands of vehicles in under a minute. The release also adds AI powered insights, natural language analysis and expanded risk data for underwriters, new SpatialKey capabilities that make geospatial analysis easier for business users, and changes across policy administration, claims and financial operations.
Medium
2026-10-29
G
GBG
GBG added a face uniqueness check to GBG Go that flags duplicate sign ups at registration, so one face holds one account. The same face check can run as a step up after a device change, unusual withdrawal or account recovery request, and it returns a reusable face credential rather than a stored biometric image. GBG says both capabilities are available through GBG Go from October 2026.
Medium
2026-10-29
Dynamic Planner released an agentic upgrade to its Digital Advice Platform at its Transforming Advice: Revealed event in London. Connectors to Microsoft 365 and Zoom are now live, and firms can push all fact find data back to Intelligent Office. A new license lets advice firms build their own multi channel client journeys on Dynamic Planner's data, risk models and insights.
Medium
2026-10-29
Moveo AI added a Debts page to its payment recovery product that lists every debt in an account in one place, including debts not linked to a contact. Users can search by external ID or contact name, and filter by status, promise to pay, compliance flags or linked contact. Opening a debt shows its balance, compliance flags and linked contacts, and debts can be deleted from the page.
Low
2026-10-29
Middesk expanded International Business Verification to more than 65 countries, more than doubling its coverage and reaching Latin America for the first time. New markets in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Middle East and Africa return registry data through the same endpoint, API parameters, batch CSV templates and dashboard used for US checks. The release also adds official registry extracts and formation documents in 18 countries.
Medium
Buyer Guides

Each guide screens one lane down to a single product function, then orders those vendors by how many of 9 regulatory axes each one publicly documents rather than by market presence. In every lane so far the names a buyer already knows are not at the top, which is timing information rather than a verdict.

The best AI credit underwriting vendors in 2026

72 vendors across the three layers of a credit decision. 10 of the vendors that build the model document fair lending governance, against 3 of the platforms that render the decision.

The best AML transaction monitoring vendors in 2026

53 vendors that monitor transactions and payments for money laundering risk, generate the alerts a compliance team works, and carry a case through to a regulatory filing.

The best identity verification vendors for fintech onboarding in 2026

54 vendors that establish who a customer is before an account opens. Five of the nineteen consumer verification products document anything about bias in the face matching that decides account access.

The best AI chatbots for banks and credit unions in 2026

28 agents that hold a conversation with a customer or member. None of the vendors with the strongest overall disclosure documents what happens when the agent gets it wrong.

The best blockchain analytics tools for crypto compliance in 2026

20 vendors whose output is a probabilistic judgment that can block a customer transaction. One of them documents what recourse exists when the attribution is wrong.

Regulatory Reference

The EU AI Act and AI vendors in financial services

The high risk compliance date moved to 2 December 2027 when Regulation (EU) 2026/1744 entered into force on 27 July 2026, and a lot of guidance written for this market still carries the old date. Annex III names two financial use cases and expressly carves out a third that is widely reported as being in scope. This page keeps the dates, the scope and what 259 vendors in the two named lanes actually document.

SR 11-7 and AI model risk management

SR 11-7 is no longer in force. Revised interagency guidance issued 17 April 2026 superseded it and three further documents, narrowed the definition of a model, set a $30 billion applicability threshold, dropped the annual validation cadence and lightened vendor model expectations. It also excludes generative and agentic AI from its scope, which is most of what this index covers.

Next live date
2 December 2026
Machine readable marking of AI generated content
At a Glance
The Index

Categories

Head to Head

Featured Comparisons

Keye vs Snowstone

Keye and Snowstone sit on opposite sides of a private equity closing, so the real choice is which side of the deal needs help first. Keye works before a bid, turning raw deal files into diligence analysis of cohort trends, margin compression and cost drivers, with every output linked to its source and exported to Excel. Snowstone starts after closing, reading the acquired company's own email, chat, documents and systems through read only connections, and turns what it finds into an EBITDA bridge and a 100 day plan in the fund's template. On security paperwork the order flips. Keye shows a SOC 2 Type 2 badge today, while Snowstone lists its SOC 2 and ISO 27001 work as in progress but names Anthropic, OpenAI and Microsoft Azure as its processors and deletes engagement data within 30 days. Keye promises zero retention and no training on its homepage, while its privacy policy describes training its models with an opt out. Neither publishes an error rate for its own analysis, a price, or what a fund is owed when a wrong figure shapes a decision.

Read full comparison →
Forter vs Riskified

Both decide ecommerce orders in real time and reimburse fraud chargebacks on what they approve, so the choice rests on what each promises beyond that and how much you can verify. Riskified guarantees approval rates as well as chargebacks, charges only on approved orders, swaps a flat decline for graduated friction through Adaptive Checkout, and handles the PSD2 transaction risk analysis exemption for European orders. Because it is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, the cost of its guarantee shows up in audited filings, and its 20-F names Maxmind, Ekata and Emailage as data feeding its models. Forter builds its identity graph of more than two billion identities from what it observes across its own network rather than from broker data. It separates legitimate AI shopping agents from automated abuse and adds a 90 day performance guarantee. It also sells a decision only agreement a merchant can later switch to the guarantee, and sells directly to payment service providers. Forter carries PCI DSS Level 1, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 and 27701, while Riskified shares no certificate. Both quote every deal.

Read full comparison →
Kount 360 by Equifax vs Signifyd

The decision is who carries the loss on a bad order. Signifyd charges only on orders it approves and takes the chargeback when one of them proves fraudulent, with cover a merchant can set anywhere from fraud only to a total chargeback liability shift. Kount, now sold by Equifax as Kount 360, gives the merchant the tools and leaves the decision and its cost with the merchant. Those tools are custom risk rules, real time alerts and automated approvals, refunds and cancellations, scored against an Identity Trust Global Network of 32 billion digital interactions and 17 billion devices on a patented device fingerprinting base. Kount also draws on Equifax consumer identity data and works with Incode, Mitek and Acuant for identity verification. It screens against sanctions and PEP lists with hourly and daily rescreening, and stops chargebacks in real time through Verifi, a Visa company. Signifyd adds Account Protection, Chargeback Recovery and an expert review path for declined orders, and sells a separate platform to payment providers. Signifyd carries SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001:2022 and PCI DSS Level 1, while Kount shows no certification under its own name.

Read full comparison →
Editorial Standard

How vendors are evaluated

Every vendor in the index is assessed across fifteen structured capability axes in four groups: AI capability, regulatory and compliance, integration and deployment, and commercial. Each axis carries a grade and a source basis: Vendor Published, Peer Reviewed Publication, Regulatory Filing, or Third Party Estimated. Figures labeled “Estimated” have not been confirmed by the vendor.

Nine of those axes are the ones a compliance or third party risk reviewer reads. The compliance framework sets out what to demand on each, and what the indexed market actually discloses.

Questions

About the index

How are vendors evaluated?

Every vendor is graded across fifteen capability axes in four groups: AI capability, regulatory and compliance, integration and deployment, and commercial. The fifteen axes are AI Centrality, Operational and Outcome Evidence, Commercial Transparency, Institution and Segment Coverage, GLBA and Data Privacy Posture, AI Safety and Data Stewardship, Autonomy and Oversight Model, Regulatory Status and Licensure, AI Governance and Bias Disclosure, Model Risk Management and Transparency, Core Systems and Integration Depth, Deployment Model and Data Residency, Security Certifications and Trust Center, AI Liability and Recourse, Model Supply Chain Disclosure. Grades are drawn from public artifacts: vendor documentation, trust centers, regulatory databases and filings, integration marketplace listings, and published research.

What does a grade mean?

A grade is a letter judgment from A to F that the index stands behind for a single axis. Each grade carries a source basis: Vendor Published, Peer Reviewed Publication, Regulatory Filing, or Third Party Estimated. Figures labeled Estimated have not been confirmed by the vendor, and Not Rated records the absence of a judgment rather than a low one.

Who independently rates AI vendors for financial institutions?

AI FinTech Index publishes independent ratings of AI vendors for banks, insurers, and other financial institutions. The index independently rates every vendor it covers across fifteen capability axes, drawing only on public evidence: vendor documentation, trust centers, regulatory filings, and published research. No vendor pays for placement and no vendor reviews its own rating before publication. The independent research behind each rating carries its source line by line, so a reader can check the judgment rather than take it on trust.

How often is the index updated?

Continuously. Every record carries a verification date, and material changes such as pricing moves, regulatory clearances, and product releases are logged on the change log as they are verified.

What regulatory frameworks does the index reference?

Regulatory posture is assessed against public frameworks, including the Federal Reserve and OCC supervisory guidance on model risk management (SR 11-7) and the EU Artificial Intelligence Act, alongside the sectoral regimes that govern each category: GLBA, fair lending law, BSA and AML obligations, and state insurance regulation.

Contact us

Found a vendor we missed? Have feedback on the index? We’d love to hear from you.

AI FinTech Index

The AI FinTech Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in financial services. It holds 610 vendors across banking, lending, insurance, wealth, capital markets and financial crime compliance, each graded on the same 15 capability axes from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 30, 2026
The AI FinTech Index is an editorial reference, not a regulatory body. Vendor data is verified against published sources and public regulatory filings. Figures labeled “Estimated” have not been confirmed by the vendor. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI FinTech Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746