A fit comparison, not a winner board

Verifex vs SanctScan

Two self-serve sanctions-screening products compared by current scope, access, evidence, and integration fit.

Choose from operating model, evidence requirements, and ownership cost. Vendor features and commercial terms change; confirm them directly before procurement.

Third-party details reviewed 13 August 2026. SanctScan pricing and API documentation (opens in a new tab)

The decision frame

Start with what your team wants to own.

SanctScan publishes a self-serve sanctions-screening product with a dashboard, continuous monitoring, webhooks, and a REST API. Its current pricing page lists nine sanctions jurisdictions, a free plan with 25 ad-hoc searches, and API access beginning with the $39/month Starter plan.

Verifex covers configured sanctions, PEP, watchlist, and debarment sources. It provides a REST API with OpenAPI specification, official SDKs for Python, Node.js, Go, and Rust, a disclosed production-engine benchmark, confidence scoring, and a 50-screen monthly evaluation tier.

The useful comparison is not an undated list-count race. Map the authorities your policy requires, then test matching, unavailable-source behavior, monitoring, evidence retention, and the complete price for your expected workload.

For implementation detail, review the Verifex screening workflow, including coverage semantics, evidence, and integration boundaries.

Side by side

Compare the operating model.

This table is a directional evaluation aid, not a substitute for current vendor documentation, a security review, or legal and procurement diligence.

Decision pointVerifexSanctScan
API plan entryFrom $49/month$39/month Starter
Evaluation tier50 screens/month25 ad-hoc searches/month
Source coverageConfigured by plan and operational stateNine jurisdictions advertised
PEP screening Yes No
Published SDKsPython / Node / Go / RustVerify current language support
Internal benchmark Yes No
Fuzzy matching Yes Yes
Confidence scores Yes Yes
Batch API Yes Yes

Verifex fits when

You want the operation managed and the decision exposed.

  • PEP screening included at no extra cost
  • REST API with OpenAPI spec; official SDKs for Python, Node.js, Go & Rust
  • 0 severe false positives across 5,000 adversarial negatives and 97.3% exact-name recall (self-administered, deployed-engine benchmark)
  • Free tier to validate in production before paying

SanctScan may fit when

Its model aligns more closely with what you need to control.

  • Simple and lightweight API surface
  • Good fit for basic sanctions-only screening needs
  • Dashboard UI for manual review workflows

Inspect the integration

The first useful proof is a real response.

Send one request, inspect the coverage and evidence semantics, then decide whether the workflow belongs in your stack.

bash
curl -X POST https://api.verifex.dev/v1/screen \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer vfx_your_api_key" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{"name": "Rosneft", "type": "entity"}'

Questions to resolve

Make the tradeoffs explicit.

How does current pricing compare?

Verifex publishes paid plans from $49/month after a 50-screen evaluation tier. SanctScan's reviewed pricing page lists API access from its $39/month Starter plan after a 25-search free plan. Compare monitoring limits, overages, team access, evidence, and required sources—not the entry price alone.

Does SanctScan offer PEP screening?

SanctScan's reviewed product and API pages describe sanctions-list screening. Verifex offers plan-configured PEP screening. Confirm current source scope and licensing directly with either provider before relying on it for a regulated program.

Can I migrate from SanctScan to Verifex easily?

Both use REST patterns, but a safe migration also maps thresholds, source semantics, unavailable-source behavior, batch jobs, webhooks, retention, and historical evidence. Validate in parallel before changing production decision authority.

Which API has better matching accuracy?

Verifex publishes its current production-engine benchmark and methodology. Regardless of vendor claims, test both products on your own labelled corpus at the thresholds and failure modes you intend to deploy.

Evaluate with your own workflow

Replace assumptions with a reviewable screening result.