Forter vs Signifyd (2026)
Both approve or decline ecommerce orders in real time and back the approvals with a chargeback guarantee, so the decision comes down to where each one's intelligence comes from and how much flexibility the contract allows. Forter builds its identity graph of more than two billion identities from what it observes across its own network rather than from data bought from brokers, and it now tells legitimate AI shopping agents apart from automated abuse. A merchant can sign a chargeback guarantee or a decision only agreement and switch later, and Forter sells directly to payment service providers managing fraud across merchant portfolios. Signifyd draws on session data, forensic signals and more than 150 outside identity sources, and lets a merchant set cover anywhere from fraud only to a total chargeback liability shift. It sends a declined order to a certified fraud analyst when the merchant resubmits it with more information. Signifyd's outcome figures carry customer names, from Hot Topic's $10 million revenue uplift to Ferguson Home's 98.5 percent approval rate, where Forter's averages do not. Both quote every deal.
- You want identity signals Forter observed itself. The graph of more than two billion identities comes from first party observation across the network rather than broker data.
- AI shopping agents are arriving at checkout. Forter separates legitimate shopping agents from automated abuse.
- You may want the guarantee later rather than now. Forter offers a chargeback guarantee agreement or a decision only agreement and lets a buyer switch.
- You are a payment provider. Forter sells to payment service providers managing fraud for whole merchant portfolios.
- You want to choose how far cover reaches. Signifyd's guarantee runs from fraud only to a total chargeback liability shift.
- Declines need a human second look. A resubmitted order with more information goes to a certified fraud analyst.
- You want named results. Hot Topic credits a $10 million revenue uplift, Cymbiotika 93 percent fewer chargebacks and Ferguson Home a 98.5 percent approval rate.
- Security review wants a report in hand. A SOC 3 report downloads without an agreement, alongside SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001:2022 and PCI DSS Level 1.
This comparison is published by AI FinTech Index, an independent research platform that publishes independent ratings of AI vendors for financial services. Forter and Signifyd 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
| Forter | Signifyd | |
|---|---|---|
| Primary category | Fraud Detection & Transaction Risk | Fraud Detection & Transaction Risk |
| Founded | Not published | 2011 |
| Headquarters | New York, New York, United States | San Jose, California, United States |
| Website | www.forter.com | www.signifyd.com |
Side by Side
Select any grade to read the note behind it.
| Axis | F Forter |
S Signifyd |
|---|---|---|
| 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
Forter
Forter makes real time trust decisions on digital commerce transactions from a first party identity graph of more than two billion identities, built from what it observes across its network rather than from broker data. It approves or declines without manual review and now tells legitimate AI shopping agents apart from automated abuse. Merchants choose a chargeback guarantee agreement, under which Forter absorbs fraud on approved orders, or a decision only agreement, and can switch later, with a 90 day performance guarantee alongside. It sells to merchants, to payment service providers managing merchant portfolios, and toward acquiring banks through payment orchestration, embedding by JavaScript or a direct interface. PCI DSS Level 1, SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and ISO 27701 cover security, and data sits in United States data centers. Pricing is quoted per customer.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Signifyd
Signifyd sells commerce protection to more than 6,000 brands under a guarantee the merchant configures, from fraud only to a total chargeback liability shift. It charges a share of approved order value and nothing on fraud declines. Decisions draw on session data, forensic signals and more than 150 outside identity sources, and a declined order resubmitted with more information goes to a certified fraud analyst. Named results include Hot Topic's $10 million revenue uplift, Cymbiotika's 93 percent drop in chargebacks and Ferguson Home's 98.5 percent approval rate. A separate Payments Optimization Platform serves payment providers. SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001:2022 and PCI DSS Level 1 back the platform, and its privacy program covers GDPR, California, Brazilian and Mexican law.
Source: AI FinTech Index, 2026
Common questions
Is Forter or Signifyd better?
Forter suits merchants and payment providers that want decisions built on first party network data and the option to start without a guarantee, by the AI FinTech Index's reading. Signifyd suits merchants that want to tune the scope of chargeback cover, a human review path for declines and named customer results. Both sell guaranteed fraud decisions to ecommerce.
How do Forter's and Signifyd's guarantees differ?
Forter absorbs the loss on approved orders that prove fraudulent under its chargeback guarantee agreement, adds a 90 day performance guarantee, and also sells an uncovered decision only agreement. Signifyd charges only on approved orders, takes nothing on fraud declines, and lets the merchant pick cover from fraud only up to a total chargeback liability shift. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified October 17, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What results do Forter and Signifyd report?
By Forter's figures, merchants switching to it average a 72 percent cut in chargeback rates and a 46 percent cut in false declines, though no merchant is named behind those averages. Signifyd ties figures to named customers, including Hot Topic, Cymbiotika and Ferguson Home, and Digital Commerce 360 has ranked it first among vendors to large retailers for five years running. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified October 17, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where do Forter and Signifyd store data?
Forter stores data in United States data centers, with affiliates processing locally in Israel, the United Kingdom and Singapore. Signifyd runs a public status page but gives no hosting provider or region, even though its privacy program covers Brazilian and Mexican law. Graded by AI FinTech Index against the same capability axes from each vendor's own published materials, verified October 17, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Related comparisons
Other published head to head assessments involving these vendors or their closest peers. The full set for this category is on the Fraud Detection & Transaction Risk page.
Neither breaks false declines down by population or gives a legitimate shopper who was declined a way to appeal. Both pool data across merchants, so one retailer's customers shape decisions at another. Both sell by quote. Signifyd is privately held, and Forter Ltd is based in Israel.