Home/Compare
Comparisons
TamperCheck vs the alternatives
18 comparisons, grouped by what the vendor actually checks. Every page answers the same fifteen questions - AI-generated document detection, how precisely a finding is located, pricing, retention, and what it takes to get started - sourced to that vendor's own published material.
7 comparisons
Document forensics
The file is the unit of work. These are the closest comparisons: every one of them examines an uploaded document rather than the person who sent it.
TamperCheck vs VerifyPDF
pay-per-document forensics vs. a capped monthly subscription
TamperCheck vs Inscribe
clear verdict in about a minute vs. enterprise fraud operations
TamperCheck vs Resistant AI
document fraud verdicts vs. enterprise AI risk platform
TamperCheck vs Snappt
purpose-built screening portal vs. flexible verification API
TamperCheck vs Ocrolus
lending automation platform vs. fast document verification
TamperCheck vs Fortiro
ANZ financial-document suite vs. field-level forensics across 100+ document types
TamperCheck vs FraudFinder
trained templates and metadata vs. field-level forensics built for generated documents
9 comparisons
Identity verification
The person is the unit of work - capture, liveness and face match against a library of ID templates. Strong on the physical security features of an ID, and not built for a payslip.
TamperCheck vs Entrust
document fraud detection vs. enterprise identity verification suite
TamperCheck vs Jumio
document fraud detection vs. end-to-end KYC automation
TamperCheck vs Persona
full-stack identity orchestration vs. forensic document API
TamperCheck vs Microblink
server-side tamper verdicts vs. capture-first identity SDKs
TamperCheck vs Sumsub
tamper API vs. full compliance & verification platform
TamperCheck vs Regula
enterprise document authenticity vs. global tamper detection across 100+ document types
TamperCheck vs Mitek
bank-grade mobile verification vs. forensic verdict API
TamperCheck vs Veriff
identity verification orchestration vs. forensic document API
TamperCheck vs HyperVerge
AI-powered identity verification vs. forensic document API
2 comparisons
Document platforms
Extraction first, fraud detection as one module beside it. The trade they offer is consolidation; the trade they ask for is depth.
Across all 18 vendors
Who keeps the document
For an identity platform the stored record is the product, and for a fraud platform the retained corpus is what the network signals and the human reviewers run on. Neither can give it up. We never write the document to disk, so there is no retention window to negotiate. Every line below is the vendor's own published position.
| Vendor | Document retention | Training on your documents |
|---|---|---|
| TamperCheck.ai | Zero - analysed in memory, never written to disk | Never |
| VerifyPDF | Encrypted at rest, auto-deleted when the retention period expires | Not addressed in published material |
| Koncile | Stored in the EU - AWS Paris, DR in Frankfurt. SOC 2 Type II, HDS | Not addressed in published material |
| Inscribe | Documents retained - their network signals compare uploads across customers | Cross-customer network signals are central to the product |
| Resistant AI | Not addressed in published material | Not addressed in published material |
| Entrust | Verification records retained for the audit trail; terms set by contract | Governed by contract, not published |
| Jumio | Verification records retained; extended retention is a priced add-on | Governed by contract, not published |
| Klippa DocHorizon | EU-hosted, ISO 27001; documents held for the processing workflow | Custom document types are trained on request |
| Snappt | Documents held in the portal for agent review | Models trained on 16M+ submitted documents (their claim) |
| Ocrolus | Documents retained - human review and analytics require it | Human-in-the-loop review feeds their models |
| Persona | Verification records retained; retention is configurable | Governed by contract, not published |
| Microblink | On-device capture limits what leaves the phone; server terms by contract | Their Fraud Lab trains models against emerging attack patterns |
| Sumsub | Applicant records retained for the compliance audit trail | Governed by contract, not published |
| Regula | Can run fully on-premise - you hold the data | On-premise deployment keeps documents with you |
| Mitek | Governed by contract, not published | Governed by contract, not published |
| Fortiro | Not stored beyond the initial processing period (their claim); ISO 27001 | Not addressed in published material |
| Veriff | Records retained; two-year extended retention costs +$0.30 per verification | Governed by contract, not published |
| HyperVerge | Set by contract and local regulation | Governed by contract, not published |
| FraudFinder | Client Data held up to six years unless deletion is requested | Terms permit anonymised, aggregated Client Data for model development |
Each vendor's position is taken from their own published material and dated on that vendor's comparison page. Two are worth reading twice: Veriff prices two-year retention as a +$0.30 per verification add-on, and FraudFinder's published terms allow Client Data retention of up to six years and permit anonymised, aggregated Client Data to be used in developing their models.
Still comparing?
Run your own documents through it instead. Add $5, we'll match it, and you can see a verdict on a file you already have.