Accertify
Accertify is an enterprise fraud prevention and payments company based in Itasca, Illinois, and led by president Mark Michelon. It was a wholly owned subsidiary of American Express from 2010 until May 2024, when the private equity firm Accel-KKR completed a carveout acquisition on undisclosed terms, returning it to standalone independent ownership while American Express continued as a partner. The product set spans four connected areas. Fraud prevention and decisioning is built on the historic Interceptas platform, alongside chargeback management.
Account protection runs through Accertify Digital Identity, an API product launched in 2020 covering account opening and account takeover. A payment gateway takes the company into payments infrastructure rather than sitting beside it. Device intelligence is delivered through InAuth technology. The company describes its platform as resting on four pillars: AI and machine learning, community insights drawn from pooled customer data, expertise, and customer held flexibility and control, with user behavior analytics alongside device signals.
Customer concentration is stated at 40 percent of the top 100 online retailers together with major global airlines, sports betting platforms, travel and hospitality operators and financial services enterprises. Delta Air Lines is named as a customer since 2010, with the airline's Revenue Protection Unit using the platform and the partnership publicly renewed. The company announced ISO 27001 certification in 2011 and published its information security management system scope at the time.
Capability Axes
Capability grades
15 of 15 axes rated · 5 graded A or B
Machine learning heads the four platform pillars, and the components around it, behavior analytics and device intelligence, are inference by nature. Without the models, pooled fraud data and a case management screen remain, which is where the product began as Interceptas rather than what is sold now.
Flexibility and control are a named pillar, and procurement assessment rates rule controls, model tooling and evidence workflows as capabilities the customer runs. With no chargeback guarantee, the merchant holds both the decision and the loss, though default behavior before configuration is unpublished.
Buyers, not the vendor, supply what performance evidence exists: a procurement assessment scores scalability 4.4 out of 5 while noting uneven scaling in partial deployments and extra tuning at peak season. No accuracy, precision or validation report accompanies the models.
Delta Air Lines has used the platform since 2010, with its Revenue Protection Unit named and the partnership publicly renewed, and 40 percent of the top 100 online retailers are stated as clients. Not one customer has a fraud prevented, chargeback or false positive figure attached.
Community data is a named pillar, so each customer's fraud outcomes train models deciding for its direct competitors in the same retail and travel categories. Whether a customer can decline to contribute, how its data is kept from a competitor's view and what happens to a departing customer's history are all unaddressed.
Gateway transactions, device identifiers and a pooled community dataset span several processing purposes, yet no data processing addendum, transfer mechanism or named privacy regime appears. Since the 2024 carveout from American Express, nothing describes what data protection apparatus came with the business.
ISO 27001 was announced in 2011 with a published management system scope, but certification runs on three year cycles. No recertification, current certificate or SOC report is public since, so that certificate speaks only to its own year.
Running a payment gateway would ordinarily bring the company into card industry scope as a service provider, yet it claims no PCI DSS attestation, level or assessor. Compliance is framed as help for customers, and no privacy or payments regime is cited.
Behavior analytics reads interaction patterns that differ systematically by age, disability and device capability, a known source of uneven performance. No error rate, fairness test or model change approval is published for any component.
Chargeback management contests disputes for the merchant but transfers no loss, and no guarantee or indemnity is published. A consumer refused at one merchant can carry that association into other merchants' decisions, and nothing describes notice, appeal or how a correction reaches the merchants who already acted.
Device intelligence is credited to InAuth technology, naming the capability behind a core signal set rather than calling it proprietary. No cloud provider, data supplier or model provider is identified, and the acquiring relationships behind the gateway are undisclosed.
Operating its own payment gateway lets a merchant route authorization and risk decisions through one supplier, removing the reconciliation between fraud verdicts and payment outcomes. Digital Identity ships as an interface, but no commerce platform connector list or developer documentation is published.
Hosted software is the only deployment model described, with no private or single tenant option. For a gateway serving global airlines and international retailers with cross border obligations, no cloud provider, region or country of processing is named.
The vendor's own surface carries no rate, and its ecommerce marketplace listing says only that installation is free and other charges may apply. Third party procurement analysis reports transaction fees, monthly fees and setup costs, which points to an implementation fee. None of the three has a figure.
A payment gateway sold beside fraud and chargeback tools puts the company in front of payments and treasury buyers, not only fraud teams. Airlines, sports betting and hospitality add depth beyond retail, but no country count or regional footprint is stated.
Product updates
Material product, regulatory, evidence and commercial changes at Accertify, each verified against a live source and tagged to the capability axis it bears on. Funding rounds and awards are not product changes and are not logged.
Accertify achieved HIPAA compliance and extended its fraud prevention platform into healthcare. The certification covers the platform's handling of protected health information.
Alternatives to Accertify
Vendors in the same categories as Accertify whose profiles look most alike, each with a line on what the product does. Similar is not the same: check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
Sift, formerly Sift Science, sells fraud decisioning to business to consumer digital companies.
NoFraud sells full service ecommerce fraud screening to small and mid sized merchants, with a Shopify centered distribution model and commercial terms a merchant can test without paying.
OneSpan is a Chicago based, publicly listed security vendor built on the authentication business formerly known as Vasco, serving more than 10,000 customers including over half of the…
SHIELD, trading as SHIELD AI Technologies Pte Ltd and formerly CashShield, is a Singapore headquartered device intelligence company founded by Justin Lie with roots going back to 2008.
BioCatch analyzes how a person physically and cognitively interacts with online and mobile banking, covering typing cadence, navigation patterns, hesitation and signs of duress, and turns…
Cybera sells banks, crypto platforms and cyber insurers two products aimed at authorized payment scams.
The index publishes no overall score or ranking. See what we assess and the methodology.
Pricing
Vendor-published figures are labeled as such. Figures labeled “Estimated” are derived from third-party sources and have not been confirmed by the vendor.
| Entry Price | Pricing Basis | Data Protection Terms | Implementation | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not published. Third party procurement analysis describes a combination of transaction fees, monthly fees and setup costs with custom enterprise pricing on request; no figure attaches to any component.
|
Custom enterprise pricing, with third party analysis describing a three part structure of transaction fees, monthly fees and setup costs. Nothing is published by the vendor, so neither the metering unit nor the relationship between the components is confirmed. The structure is plausible given the product range, since the company sells fraud decisioning, chargeback management, digital identity and a payment gateway as separable lines, and a gateway is conventionally priced per transaction while a decisioning platform is conventionally priced on a subscription with volume tiers, so a combined model would follow from selling both. Because no chargeback guarantee is offered and the merchant retains the loss, the fee is a software and processing price rather than an underwriting output, which means a published rate card would be possible here in a way it is not for a guarantee seller. None exists. | No data processing addendum, subprocessor list, retention schedule or named privacy regime is published. The ownership change makes the gap matter. This platform operated inside American Express from 2010 until May 2024, when Accel-KKR completed a carveout, and nothing published describes what data protection apparatus traveled with the business or what now governs the pooled community dataset that trains its models. On assurance the only artifact is an ISO 27001 certification announced in 2011 with a published scope statement. No current certificate, recertification, SOC report or PCI DSS attestation is public, even though the company operates a payment gateway. | Chargeable. Third party procurement analysis identifies setup costs as an explicit component of the commercial model alongside transaction and monthly fees, while several competitors publish an express no setup fee commitment. No figure, band or basis is stated for it. The implementation itself would reasonably carry cost, since the platform spans fraud decisioning, chargeback management, digital identity and a payment gateway, and a customer adopting the gateway is changing payment infrastructure rather than adding a screening call. Third party assessment also flags that modules scale unevenly when only partially deployed and that peak season tuning requires capacity planning. Both imply configuration effort beyond initial integration. | Third Party Estimated |
No rate appears on the vendor's own surface. The one vendor controlled listing carrying a price field, an ecommerce application marketplace, states only that the application is free to install with additional charges possible. Third party procurement analysis is more specific about the structure than the vendor is, describing a model combining transaction fees, monthly fees and setup costs with custom enterprise pricing on request. Setup costs are the component that matters.
They are an explicit part of this model, where several direct competitors publish that they charge none, so an implementation fee is the reasonable expectation. The company has been enterprise sales led for close to two decades and spent fourteen of those years inside a card issuer, so the absence of published pricing is structural rather than an oversight. A rate surfacing on a reseller or marketplace listing reads as one negotiated deal rather than a list price.