Make each screening decision reviewable in context.

Verifex gives teams a shared screening result contract across different operational workflows. Source coverage, capabilities, and limits depend on the active plan and environment. 97.33% exact-name recall (95% CI 94.83–98.64%), measured August 12, 2026 on Production Engine vNext, self-administered and not independent validation. The deployed engine has changed since that measurement, so this describes the configuration tested on that date rather than current behaviour; the latest served measurement (October 13, 2026) is on the benchmark page, with every gate.

Start an evaluation Read the API contract

WORKFLOW BOUNDARY

Screening is an input, not an approval

Evidence supports an internal decision. It does not certify a transaction, entity, product, or regulatory outcome.

A candidate is not a confirmed identity. Partial or unavailable source execution remains visible to the operator.

Featured workflow

Pharmaceutical trade compliance

A bounded industry workflow, not a product-certification service.

Use screening and evidence records to help structure your own counterparty review. Verifex does not approve, certify, register, test, or authorize pharmaceutical products.

Industry workflow

Pharmaceutical trade compliance

Apply Verifex screening and evidence workflows to suppliers, manufacturers, exporters, logistics providers, directors, and ownership-related parties when the relevant sources and enrichment capabilities are enabled.

Counterparty screening against enabled sanctions, PEP, watchlist, debarment, and jurisdiction sources
Party-by-party review for directors and ownership-related context where available
Customer-managed document checklists that can be associated with an internal review
Recorded screening context, evidence availability, and reviewer decisions

Start with a representative workflow and inspect the actual coverage and evidence returned for it.

View the workflow

Workflow patterns

The same decision grammar, adapted to the work in front of you.

Different operational jobs need different evidence and controls. They should not need different truth semantics.

01

Fintech onboarding

Screen customers and relevant related parties against enabled sources at onboarding, then give internal policy a reviewable result contract.

Explore AML screening

02

Crypto and VASP workflows

Use configured sanctions screening as one input to your own onboarding and transaction controls. Product outputs do not replace your regulatory assessment.

Explore screening inputs

03

Trade finance

Check counterparties, exporters, shippers, and logistics providers against enabled source coverage before an internal approval or review decision.

Read the API contract

04

Supplier due diligence

Screen a supplier and associated parties individually, then retain the source, coverage, and evidence context needed for procurement review.

Explore entity context

UK company context

Registry context can reduce ambiguity. It cannot prove ownership.

Companies House is useful entity-reference context for a UK workflow. It is separate from sanctions authority and does not establish beneficial ownership on its own.

Configuration dependent

Verify UK company name, number, legal status, and other published registry context
Review officers and persons with significant control when the registry exposes those fields
Screen a company and associated parties against enabled Verifex sources
Preserve the screening request, source context, and evidence-availability state
Use registry context to reduce ambiguity in company-name screening

Start an evaluation View API docs

Inspect what your current screening actually covers.

Start from your real workflow

Run a representative request alongside your existing process, then review source state, candidate completeness, evidence availability, and the policy decision you need to make.

Start screening Read the documentation