We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"The most valuable feature is its ability to create your own ruleset and edit it whenever you want. Their reporting functionality is very helpful. It's really robust."
"It's an in-depth, all-in-one solution."
"The initial setup was absolutely straightforward. Within a week I was fully working."
"The most valuable thing is about the IP. They have a database of malicious IP addresses against which they check. They have a huge database for routed devices and the devices that have been used in the past to commit fraud. They have extensive historical records of all of that information, and that's probably the most valuable thing about ThreatMetrix. Over the years, they have been collecting and persisting globally across all the banking and financial services. They have been storing all this information. It is this stored information that I and my team find valuable; it is not so much their technology. If you are running it on a simulator and trying to maliciously clone and copy IP addresses and stuff like that, they have a bunch of technologies, like routes section and all the other stuff. It is just that they have something that no one else can deal with, that is, massive amounts of big data about the malicious IP addresses, malicious device fingerprinting, the fingerprinting router devices, and the fingerprints. You can query against this stored information to find out whether your app is in a good, nice environment. If yes, you get a green light. The last time I checked, there were about 400 or 500 features that they can stack against, which is pretty extensive. They give you a score against all those features for every application that you installed on it. It is pretty good in that sense."
"The user interface, the portal, is very helpful in describing what attributes of concern are associated with the device."
"Accessible custom rules with a monthly update on performance."
"The most valuable feature the solution has is that it is able to do a fairly accurate fraud assessment of a credit card transaction based on a variety of parameters configured by the merchant."
"There is excellent documentation available."
"They could do a little bit better with chargeback management. There are other solutions out there that I've heard about, like Accertify that have a better chargeback platform where they're integrated more with the banks or in terms of how the workflow is and how you can respond to chargebacks."
"The rule system and automation could be expanded a little bit more."
"The time that is taken to go to Kount and come back should be in the order of around 100 milliseconds or less. And our context was taking around 200 to 300 milliseconds. We didn't want the extra load of 100 milliseconds to happen, so if the two rounds of stability could be cut to one, that would be very helpful."
"SDK is probably where the biggest issue is. The SDK configuration is a bit lacking. If you are integrating it into your workflow, it is very cumbersome and very difficult to integrate. You have to understand and be an expert in low-level mobile applications to integrate this stuff. Integration should be easy based on what they are providing, but unfortunately, it is not. It is very difficult. My work has been trying to simplify the integration process because integrations bring a lot of value. Most companies don't see their value because it is such a difficult process. For integration, you have to get it right as well, but it is very difficult to get it right because they don't help you in tuning your future parameters. Because of this, it is very difficult to tune your future parameters and your risk score. If you are Uber, your risk score will be very different from a banking client that is pushing funds. These two things need to be improved for me. The rest is pretty good."
"One limitation is it only maintains six months' worth of data. It would be nice if it went back even further to help us really identify and flush out patterns that go on longer."
"Could be more intuitive and user friendly."
"It would be useful if they could offer real-time processing."
"We are only using one feature. We haven't found the other features to be very good or very powerful."
"I think the pricing is great — I think it's totally worth what they're charging because the benefits are great."
"I am not aware of the price. I have always come in after it has been negotiated. The clients do get a return on their investment. It mitigated a massive DDoS, and it definitely detects fraudulent activities on banking platforms. They have definitely got their ROI back because there is continued investment in ThreatMetrix over time."
Kount’s patented machine learning technology analyzes transactions to stop fraud and increase revenue for online businesses, merchants, acquiring banks, and payment service providers.
Kount is ranked 6th in Fraud Detection and Prevention with 3 reviews while ThreatMetrix is ranked 1st in Fraud Detection and Prevention with 5 reviews. Kount is rated 9.0, while ThreatMetrix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of Kount writes "Focused on maximizng sales and minimizing fraud and chargebacks". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatMetrix writes "It has a huge database of malicious IP addresses and gives a score for your environment". Kount is most compared with Forter, Riskified and Accertify Interceptas, whereas ThreatMetrix is most compared with iovation FraudForce, BioCatch, IBM Trusteer, Featurespace ARIC Fraud Hub and DataVisor. See our Kount vs. ThreatMetrix report.
See our list of best Fraud Detection and Prevention vendors.
We monitor all Fraud Detection and Prevention reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.