Codat vs Perfios (2026)
The decision is whether you want the evidence for a credit decision or the decision itself, and these two are built on opposite sides of that line. Codat standardises what a borrower's accounting, banking and commerce platforms say and hands it to your underwriters, which is why it grades C on AI centrality: strip the models out and a working data standardisation business remains. Perfios produces the assessment, and its CAM AI platform is described as a credit underwriting platform rather than an input supplier, which puts it inside the decision rather than beside it. Everything else follows from that. Perfios holds A on regulatory status because its permissions are structural, sitting inside the central bank's account aggregator framework, the identity authority and the tax network, each a supervised system it had to be admitted to. Codat grades C, naming only the general data protection regime while operating adjacent to the regulated data access regimes in both its main markets without saying which apply to it. And being inside the decision is why Perfios carries the lowest fairness grade on this page, a D, for credit assessment at national scale with no fair lending testing, outcome analysis or adverse action handling published at all.
- You want evidence delivered, not a decision rendered. Codat connects to a borrower's accounting, banking and commerce platforms through consented authorisation and returns standardised statements, enriched transactions and liability summaries for initial underwriting, periodic review and portfolio monitoring, leaving the credit call with your own risk team.
- The business should hold the switch. Access is granted through an authorisation flow the business itself initiates and understands, and it can be withdrawn, so the subject of the data can end the relationship unilaterally rather than petitioning anyone. That control is why Codat holds B on liability and recourse where Perfios grades C.
- Your supplier review needs an attestation set. Codat holds A on security certifications and trust centre and A on core systems and integration depth, with more than twenty source platforms named individually across accounting, commerce and payments so a buyer can establish exactly where each field originates.
- You are lending in India and want the rails rather than a connector. Perfios is wired directly into the central bank's consent based account aggregator framework, the national identity authority, the goods and services tax network and the small business development bank. Each is a supervised system with its own admission requirements, so being inside them is a passed process rather than a claim, and it is why Perfios holds A on regulatory status where Codat grades C.
- You want the decision made, not the inputs supplied. CAM AI is a credit underwriting platform built on the company's own models with generative and agentic tooling, stated to cut underwriting turnaround by up to 85 percent, alongside document tampering and fraud detection and collections.
- Scale and reach are the purchase. Perfios holds A on operational and outcome evidence and A on institution and segment coverage, serving banks, non bank finance companies, fintechs and insurers across origination, onboarding, underwriting and monitoring.
This comparison is published by AI FinTech Index, an independent research platform that publishes independent ratings of AI vendors for financial services. Codat and Perfios are each graded against the same capability taxonomy, from each vendor's own public materials and the regulatory record, under the AI FinTech Index verification standard. No vendor pays for placement, and no vendor has reviewed this page. How this evidence is graded
Plain facts
| Codat | Perfios | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Credit Decisioning & Underwriting | Credit Decisioning & Underwriting |
| Founded | 2017 | 2008 |
| Headquarters | London, United Kingdom | Bengaluru, Karnataka, India |
| Website | codat.io | perfios.ai |
Side by Side
| Axis | C Codat |
P Perfios |
|---|---|---|
| AI Centrality | ||
| Autonomy and Oversight Model | ||
| Model Risk Management and Transparency | ||
| Operational and Outcome Evidence | ||
| AI Safety and Data Stewardship | ||
| GLBA and Data Privacy Posture | ||
| Security Certifications and Trust Center | ||
| Regulatory Status and Licensure | ||
| AI Governance and Bias Disclosure | ||
| AI Liability and Recourse | ||
| Model Supply Chain Disclosure | ||
| Core Systems and Integration Depth | ||
| Deployment Model and Data Residency | ||
| Commercial Transparency | ||
| Institution and Segment Coverage |
The short version of each
Codat
Codat standardises small business financial data behind one integration for lenders, commercial banks, neobanks and card issuers. Its Underwriting and Monitoring product connects to a borrower's accounting, banking and commerce platforms through consented authorisation, then delivers standardised statements, enriched transactions and liability summaries for initial underwriting, periodic review and portfolio monitoring, with machine learning categorising transactions using business rather than consumer categories. The AI FinTech Index grades it A on core systems and integration depth and A on security certifications and trust centre, with B on operational evidence, institution coverage, GLBA posture, AI liability and recourse and model supply chain disclosure, documenting four of the nine regulatory axes the index tracks against an index average of 2.93 across 489 vendors. Its liability grade rests on a control held by the subject: the business initiates the authorisation and can withdraw it. AI centrality, commercial transparency, AI safety, autonomy, regulatory status, governance and bias disclosure, model risk management and deployment residency are graded C.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Perfios
Perfios supplies the decisioning layer beneath much of Indian lending, serving banks, non bank finance companies, fintechs and insurers across origination, onboarding, underwriting and monitoring. Models read bank statements, tax filings, profit and loss statements and balance sheets to produce income, cash flow and creditworthiness assessments, alongside know your customer checks, document tampering and fraud detection, and collections. The AI FinTech Index grades it A on operational and outcome evidence, institution and segment coverage, regulatory status and licensure and core systems and integration depth, with B on AI centrality, GLBA posture, autonomy and model supply chain disclosure, documenting four of the nine regulatory axes the index tracks against an index average of 2.93 across 489 vendors. Its regulatory grade is the deepest integration of its kind in the index, sitting inside the central bank's account aggregator framework, the national identity authority, the tax network and the small business development bank. Commercial transparency, AI safety, model risk management, deployment residency, security certifications and liability and recourse are graded C, and AI governance and bias disclosure is graded D.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Codat better than Perfios?
They sit at different points in the same lending stack and geography settles most of it. Codat standardises small business financial data behind one integration and hands it to your own underwriters. Perfios supplies the decisioning layer beneath much of Indian lending, with a credit underwriting platform that produces the assessment rather than the inputs to one. Both document four of the nine regulatory axes the AI FinTech Index tracks. If you lend in India and want national infrastructure integration, Perfios. If you want standardised inputs into a decision engine you own, Codat.
Which one can tell me what it is permitted to do?
Perfios, and the difference is structural rather than declarative. Its platform is integrated directly into the central bank's consent based account aggregator framework, the national identity authority, the tax network and the small business development bank, each a supervised system with its own admission requirements, so presence inside them is a process the company passed. That earns A on regulatory status. Codat grades C: only the general data protection regime is named, and nothing published states which of the regulated data access regimes in its main markets apply to it or whether any registration is held. For a vendor pulling banking data on consent, that is the first diligence question. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
If the data is wrong about my business, can I do anything?
Codat, and only partially. The business grants access through an authorisation flow it initiates and can withdraw, so it controls whether the data flows at all, which earns B on liability and recourse. What that does not reach is the borrower declined because a miscategorised ledger produced the wrong ratios, since nothing describes correction of a classification or notification that one drove an outcome. Perfios grades C: consent under the aggregator framework can be withdrawn for that portion of the flow, but an applicant whose income was misread from a document, or who was flagged by tampering detection, is not told a machine reached that conclusion and has no described route to correct it. A tampering flag in particular is an adverse finding that follows a person without their knowledge. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified August 23, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does the AI FinTech Index grade Codat and Perfios?
Both are graded on the same fifteen capability axes, with every grade traceable to the public artifact it was read from and the date it was verified, and the index publishes no composite score. Each documents four of the nine regulatory axes at A or B, against an index average of 2.93 across 489 vendors. Codat holds A on core systems integration and security certifications, with B on operational evidence, institution coverage, GLBA posture, liability and recourse and model supply chain disclosure, and C on AI centrality, commercial transparency, AI safety, autonomy, regulatory status, governance and bias, model risk and deployment residency. Perfios holds A on operational evidence, institution coverage, regulatory status and core systems integration, with B on AI centrality, GLBA posture, autonomy and supply chain, C on commercial transparency, AI safety, model risk, deployment residency, security certifications and liability, and D on governance and bias disclosure.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Credit Decisioning & Underwriting page.
The regulatory positions here are close to inverted and the inversion is the finding. Perfios holds A because its permissions are structural: operating inside the account aggregator framework, the identity authority and the tax network means passing each system's admission process, which a reader can check rather than take on trust.
Codat grades C, naming the general data protection regime and no other supervisor, statute or admission process, which is a specific gap for a business supplying bank feeds and pulling banking data on consent, because that activity sits adjacent to the regulated data access regimes in both its main markets and those regimes carry their own authorisation and conduct requirements. Nothing published states which apply or whether any registration is held. Ask Codat that first.
The fairness positions invert the same way and more sharply. Perfios grades D on AI governance and bias disclosure, and the reason is scope rather than sloppiness: its models produce income verification, cash flow assessment and creditworthiness scoring feeding underwriting at more than a thousand institutions, and CAM AI is described as an underwriting platform rather than an input supplier, which places it inside the decision.
Nothing published addresses fair lending testing, outcome analysis across borrower groups, adverse action handling, or how extraction accuracy varies across document types, languages, regional formats and the informal record keeping typical of the small business and agricultural borrowers it explicitly serves. Codat grades C for the milder version of the same exposure, since a miscategorised ledger changes the ratios an underwriter reads without anyone seeing a model in the decision. Neither publishes accuracy by business type.