Corlytics vs CUBE (2026)
Two regulatory intelligence consolidators running the same playbook, and they disclose opposite halves of themselves. Corlytics holds the only A on outcome evidence in this pairing, and it is earned on the hardest test rather than on testimonials: a global bank divested its own regulatory monitoring platform to it in January 2023, and a major professional services firm sold it their regulatory technology platform in November 2024 with that firm's risk advisory managing partner supporting the deal publicly. An organisation handing over a product it built and could have kept competing with is a stronger signal than any logo, and it happened twice. Named clients include ING, BNY Mellon, Scotiabank, Swiss Re, SCOR and the United States broker dealer regulator as a customer. CUBE answers with scale: roughly 1,000 customers, 750 jurisdictions, 80 languages and 10,000 issuing bodies, with separate products for a global systemically important bank and for a lean mid market compliance team. Both earn A on institution coverage. The disclosure split is the finding. Corlytics publishes a certified AI management system and tenanted client databases but will not name the model its own engine runs on. CUBE names its cloud and model provider through an announced partnership but publishes no accuracy figure for classification claims that are directly measurable.
- Evidence that survives scrutiny is the requirement. Two organisations sold this vendor products they had built themselves, one a global bank and one a major professional services firm, and named clients include ING, BNY Mellon, Scotiabank, Swiss Re, SCOR and a national securities regulator as a customer, with reported reach at 14 of the top 50 global banks.
- Your supervisor relationship matters to the selection. A national securities regulator runs its own work on this platform and the company has worked with a conduct regulator on machine readable regulatory taxonomies, which is a more direct supervisory signal than any competitor in this cohort holds.
- Data segregation has to be structural. Client data is held in tenanted databases and a certified artificial intelligence management system covers data governance across the model lifecycle, independently audited, which is a real answer where most of this category leaves the question open.
- You sell into or alongside regulators. The same platform is sold to supervised firms and to their supervisors, with coverage across more than 120 countries and 2,500 authorities including global standard setting bodies, an unusual breadth claim that is externally corroborated.
- Jurisdictional footprint is the buying criterion. A stated 10,000 issuing bodies, 750 jurisdictions and 80 languages, with the engine also exposed through APIs so a customer can run the same summarisation, classification and enrichment stack over its own content rather than only through the vendor's screen.
- You are not a tier one institution. Separate named products exist for tier one enterprises, for mid market banks, wealth managers and asset managers, and for lean compliance teams, so the platform is bought at the size you actually are rather than scaled down from a bank build.
- You want to know whose models you are inheriting. The company announced a partnership with a major cloud and model provider in September 2025 and documents its agentic control rewrite capability as built on that provider's hosted models, earning a B on supply chain disclosure where its rival sits at C.
- Human review at volume is the assurance you want. Roughly 250 in house regulatory specialists review and curate machine output before it reaches customers, published and marketed as a deliberate position against pure automation rather than left implicit.
This comparison is published by AI FinTech Index, an independent research platform that publishes independent ratings of AI vendors for financial services. Corlytics and CUBE 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
| Corlytics | CUBE | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Compliance, Surveillance & RegTech | Compliance, Surveillance & RegTech |
| Founded | Not published | 2011 |
| Headquarters | Dublin, Ireland | London, England, United Kingdom |
| Website | www.corlytics.com | cube.global |
Side by Side
| Axis | C Corlytics |
C CUBE |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Corlytics
Corlytics sells regulatory risk intelligence and policy compliance software to financial institutions and to regulators themselves, classifying regulatory text across more than 120 countries and 2,500 authorities, extracting obligations, entities and dates, ranking them by criticality, and mapping change to internal policies and controls with attestation and traceability through its acquired policy platform. The AI FinTech Index records its outcome evidence at A on the independent party with money at stake test, met twice when a global bank and a major professional services firm each sold it a product they had built, alongside named clients including ING, BNY Mellon, Scotiabank, Swiss Re, SCOR and a national securities regulator as a customer. The index records the gaps: no published pricing, no precision or recall for obligation extraction, and no model provider, architecture or hosting arrangement named for its own engine despite holding a certified artificial intelligence management system.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
CUBE
CUBE captures, classifies and interprets laws, rules and regulations across a stated 10,000 issuing bodies, 750 jurisdictions and 80 languages, maps each change to the policies, controls and teams it affects, and delivers through separate products for tier one enterprises, mid market institutions and lean compliance teams, with roughly 250 in house regulatory specialists reviewing machine output and the engine exposed through APIs for a customer's own content. The AI FinTech Index records it at A on institution coverage, few vendors addressing both a global systemically important bank and a community bank with named products for each, and at B on model supply chain for naming its cloud and model provider. The index records the gaps: no pricing shape published even for the mid market product, no accuracy figure for classification or for the regulatory change prediction it advertises, and no boundary statement on whether content one customer submits informs what another is served.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Corlytics better than CUBE for regulatory change management?
They lead on different evidence. Corlytics holds the only A on outcome evidence in this pairing, earned twice over by organisations selling it products they had built themselves, and holds B where CUBE holds C on regulatory standing, data stewardship and model risk transparency. CUBE holds the larger stated footprint at 750 jurisdictions and 80 languages, tiered products for every institution size, and the better supply chain disclosure. Both earn A on institution coverage. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 5, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What makes Corlytics' outcome evidence an A?
It meets the independent party with money at stake test twice. A global bank divested its own regulatory monitoring platform to the company in January 2023, and a major professional services firm sold it their regulatory technology platform in November 2024, with that firm's risk advisory managing partner supporting the deal publicly. Named clients include ING, BNY Mellon, Scotiabank, Swiss Re, SCOR and a national securities regulator as a customer. What keeps the grade honest is that no client publishes a quantified outcome in figures. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 5, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Why is CUBE's outcome evidence held at B despite around 1,000 customers?
Because the strongest signals do not attach where they need to. Five global banks appear publicly, but as backers of a compliance collaboration initiative the company leads rather than as customers reporting a measured result. The single strongest quantified outcome, a tier one bank restandardising more than 20,000 controls in one week against an estimated 7,500 days of manual effort, is published in a cloud partner's customer story with the bank unnamed, and attaches to the acquired operational risk tool rather than to the regulatory intelligence platform. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 5, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one discloses more about its own AI?
Each discloses the half the other withholds, which is the finding of this pairing. Corlytics publishes a certified artificial intelligence management system, independently audited across the model lifecycle, and holds client data in tenanted databases, but refers to its engine only as its own large language model with no provider, architecture, hosting arrangement or version policy named. CUBE names its cloud and model provider through an announced partnership, but publishes no accuracy figure, benchmark or validation method for classification claims that can be tested against a known corpus. A certified management system governs how models are managed; it does not tell a buyer whose models they are. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 5, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Why do both sit at B rather than A on AI centrality?
The removal test. Strip the models from either and a saleable regulatory content operation remains, staffed by legal and compliance specialists who can write summaries manually. Corlytics keeps a content operation spanning 120 countries and 2,500 authorities plus an acquired policy management platform that was standalone until 2023; CUBE keeps roughly 250 in house regulatory experts and an acquired human curated content business. Both were peer anchored against the regulatory intelligence vendors in this index that sit at A, where nothing sellable survives removing the models. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 5, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does the AI FinTech Index grade Corlytics and CUBE?
Both are graded on the same fifteen capability axes from public sources, each grade traceable to its artifact. The index records Corlytics with an A on outcome evidence earned by two organisations divesting products to it, and B on regulatory standing, data stewardship and model risk transparency where CUBE holds C. It records CUBE with the larger stated jurisdictional footprint, tiered products across institution sizes, and a named model provider where Corlytics discloses none. Both hold A on institution coverage and C on commercial transparency. The index publishes no composite score and declares no winner.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Compliance, Surveillance & RegTech page.
Both sit at C on commercial transparency, and so does every established regulatory intelligence platform screened for this index, which means a buyer cannot compare cost between them without entering a sales process with each. Third party analysis places bank tier contracts in the low six figures at the entry end, but that is an outside estimate rather than vendor disclosure.
CUBE's gap is sharper on one point: it sells a distinct mid market product to the segment least able to absorb a procurement cycle just to discover a price, and publishes no pricing shape for it. Neither publishes precision, recall or extraction accuracy for obligation extraction, classification or summarisation, all of which are testable against a known corpus of regulatory text, and CUBE additionally advertises regulatory change prediction, which is directly checkable against what regulators subsequently published.
The asymmetry is what matters: a false positive costs an analyst minutes while a missed obligation surfaces as a supervisory finding at the customer. On oversight both describe a human step and neither publishes a sampling rate, review threshold or escalation rule. CUBE's cross institution benchmarking network holds the internal control frameworks of direct competitors, and no boundary statement covering the regulatory intelligence platform or the customer facing API was located.