Choosing a document verification partner is a significant decision. This page helps procurement and operations teams understand how TamperCheck compares to FraudFinder - on pricing, privacy posture, and what it actually takes to get started. Note that TamperCheck works on digital PDFs and scanned hard copies alike - including physical stamp verification and handwritten signature analysis, not just native digital files.
Digital PDFs
text layer + raster analysis
Phone photos & scans
camera captures and flatbed scans
Physical stamp verification
ink bleed, embossing, overlay detection
Handwritten signature analysis
forgery and substitution checks
Side-by-side
| What matters to your team | TamperCheck.ai | FraudFinder |
|---|---|---|
| Core focus | Document verification only - tampering and synthesis | Application fraud suite - documents, affordability, AML |
| Detection approach | Template-free forensics on the file's own bytes and pixels | Trained templates, metadata, structure and barcodes |
| Finding resolution | Names the specific field that changed and where it sits | 300+ risk indicators rolled into a document decision |
| AI-generated documents | Dedicated synthesis and deepfake pass on every upload | Checks against ChatGPT images and known template farms |
| Unseen document formats | No template required - any issuer, any country, first upload | Template has to be trained before it is covered |
| Coverage | 100+ document types across 190+ countries | 95%+ UK & Irish bank templates; global formats trained on request |
| Speed | About a minute | About 3 seconds (vendor claim) |
| Data retention | Zero storage - analysed in memory, never written to disk | Client Data up to six years unless deletion is requested |
| Model training | Never trained on your documents | Terms permit anonymised, aggregated Client Data for model training |
| Data residency | Nothing persisted anywhere | UK/EU hosting; limited metadata to OpenAI (US) under SCCs |
| Pricing | $0.50 per document, published, no subscription | Not published - credit bundles or an order form |
| Getting started | Sign up and call the API the same day - $5 start, matched to $10 | Book a demo |
When to choose TamperCheck
- The fakes you are missing were never edited. A generated payslip carries the correct template, clean metadata, no resave history and no splice artifacts - it satisfies structure, template and metadata checks by construction. Catching it takes per-field rendering forensics and a dedicated synthesis pass, not a longer list of surface indicators.
- Your documents sit outside a trained template set. Template depth stops helping the moment a format has not been taught - a Nigerian payslip, a Brazilian tax notice, a UAE trade licence. TamperCheck carries no template library at all, so an unfamiliar issuer is not a coverage gap.
- Your analyst has to justify the decision. “Net pay does not match gross minus deductions, and that figure is rendered in a different font weight to the rest of the line” survives a complaint file. An indicator count does not.
- Nothing may be retained. Documents are discarded when analysis finishes and are never used to train a model - no six-year retention window, and no anonymised-data clause, to walk a security reviewer through.
- You want to test it today, on your own documents, at $0.50 each with published pricing - rather than book a demo to find out what it costs and what it catches.
When to choose FraudFinder
- You underwrite UK and Irish applicants exclusively. Templates trained on 95%+ of UK and Irish bank formats and 98%+ of energy bills, with IBAN and sort-code validation, are real local coverage - weighed against what a template library cannot do: judge an issuer it was never taught, or catch a document that matched the template because it was generated from one.
- You need extraction, affordability and AML in one contract. FraudFinder returns open-banking-shaped JSON from a statement and runs source-of-funds checks. We do verification only, by design - depth inside the file rather than breadth across the application. If you want the whole application layer in a single purchase order, they sell more of it.
- Three seconds matters more to you than depth. Their claimed turnaround suits a synchronous application flow better than our roughly one minute - the trade being a fast answer against an explained one.
Surface checks against documents that were never edited
FraudFinder's published method is a surface method. Their technology page describes examining “every element of a file from its font, to the barcodes and its metadata”, matched against trained templates - 95%+ of UK and Irish bank statements, 98%+ of energy bills - and scored across 300+ risk indicators. Against a fraudster who opens a real PDF and retypes a number, that works: the edit leaves metadata, resave history and structural residue to find. The threat model has moved. A document generated end-to-end is template-correct by construction, carries clean metadata because it was written once, and has no edit history because nothing was edited. Every signal a surface check depends on is absent - not because the check is badly built, but because there is nothing on the surface left to find.
That is why TamperCheck resolves the analysis to the individual field rather than the document. Each OCR field is compared against the rest of its own page: font weight, kerning and glyph rendering, edge sharpness, recompression history, black-floor level. A generated document has to survive that comparison internally, with no genuine reference page to imitate, which is a far harder problem than matching a template. A separate AI-generation and deepfake pass runs on every upload alongside it. FraudFinder does claim checks against ChatGPT-generated images and known template farms - a signature-style defence that catches yesterday's generators and the documents produced by them, and by its nature lags the model released this month.
The coverage consequence follows from the same design. A trained-template system is only as good as its library: strong on UK and Irish formats, and requiring training before a new issuer or country is covered. A template-free forensic system reads the file's own internal consistency, so a first-time Brazilian tax notice is analysed on the same footing as a Barclays statement. Their breadth is sideways - extraction, affordability, IBAN checks, AML - which is genuinely more product than we sell. Ours is downward, into the file.
Finally, what happens to the document afterwards, and it is worth reading both sets of terms rather than either vendor's summary. FraudFinder's published terms provide for Client Data retention of up to six years unless earlier deletion is requested, with on-demand deletion on Enterprise plans, UK/EU hosting, and a clause permitting anonymised and aggregated Client Data to be used to develop their models. TamperCheck never writes the document to disk and never trains on it. Retained data is what lets a template library grow, so the trade is a real one - but it is a trade your security reviewer gets to see, and it decides some purchases on its own.
TamperCheck vs FraudFinder: common questions
What is the best FraudFinder alternative?
TamperCheck.ai, particularly if AI-generated documents are the concern. FraudFinder's published method is template, metadata and structure analysis across 300+ risk indicators; TamperCheck carries no template library, compares each field's rendering against the rest of its own page, and runs a dedicated AI-generation and deepfake pass on every upload.
Do template and metadata checks catch AI-generated documents?
They catch far less than they do against edited files. A document generated end to end is template-correct by construction, carries clean metadata because it was written once, and has no resave history because nothing was altered - so the signals a surface check depends on are simply absent. Catching it requires per-field rendering forensics and a dedicated synthesis pass.
How does TamperCheck's pricing compare to FraudFinder's?
TamperCheck publishes $0.50 per document with no subscription, no minimum and API access from the first document. FraudFinder does not publish pricing - access is via credit bundles or an order form after a demo - so the comparison has to be made through their sales process.
Does TamperCheck store documents like FraudFinder?
No. TamperCheck analyses documents in memory, never writes them to disk and never trains on them. FraudFinder's published terms provide for Client Data retention of up to six years unless earlier deletion is requested, with on-demand deletion on Enterprise plans, and permit anonymised, aggregated Client Data to be used in developing their models.
See results in minutes - not after a sales cycle
Add your first $5 and we'll match it with $5 in free credits. No contract, no minimum commitment. Upload your first document and get a verdict in about a minute.
Get started free