Provider at a glance
- Category
- KYC & Compliance
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- veriff.com
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 78 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read on file.
Veriff
Identity verification from Estonia
KYC & Compliance
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 7 KYC & compliance in the published ranking
78
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Veriff right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Published Price You Can Act On9/10; the category best is 10
- Verified Country & Document Coverage9/10, the category best
- Will They Still Be Here In Three Years7/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Biometric Custody & Enforcement History4/10 here; Sumsub scores 6
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best KYC provider shows where it lands for you.
What will Veriff cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Transactions per year
- 1k
How safe is Veriff?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Veriff
Compare all 4- 1Sumsub2 points above · stronger on data custody risk (6 against 4)80
- 3ComplyCube1 point below · stronger on data custody risk (5 against 4)77
- 4Didit4 points below · stronger on price transparency (10 against 9)74
For your setup
Find out if Veriff fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Veriff lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best KYC providerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Veriff ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (23.0 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
309+8.648.010#2/7Loading evidence…
304+3.845.06#5/7Loading evidence…
259+7.206.09#1/7Loading evidence…
157+3.366.07#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Sumsub, #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 76–80 and ranks #2–#3
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Veriff’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
Biometric Custody & Enforcement History 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Sumsub+281#2 → #1
Will They Still Be Here In Three Years 7 → 9 on its ladder · passes Sumsub+280#2 → #1
Published Price You Can Act On 9 → 8 on its ladder · ComplyCube passes it−176#2 → #3
Biometric Custody & Enforcement History 4 → 3 on its ladder · ComplyCube passes it−176#2 → #3
Verified Country & Document Coverage 9 → 8 on its ladder · ComplyCube passes it−177#2 → #3
Smallest climb: biometric Custody & Enforcement History 4 → 6 passes Sumsub, #1.
Strengths
3 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Published Price You Can Act On — 9/10, category best 10/10
- Verified Country & Document Coverage — 9/10, the category best
- Will They Still Be Here In Three Years — 7/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
1 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Biometric Custody & Enforcement History — 4/10 against a category best of 6/10
Record watch-outs
- The 95% first-try figure and 230+ country count are Veriff's own marketing numbers with no methodology published, and 'countries and territories' is a laxer denominator than supported document issuance. The cheap $0.80 Essential tier is full-auto with no specialist review, so the tier most likely to hold up against deepfake-assisted fraud is $1.89 plus $0.64 for sanctions screening, i.e. roughly $2.53 all-in, not $0.80.
- Veriff has a BIPA class settlement. McGowan v. Veriff, Inc., Case No. 2021L001202 (Ill. Cir. Ct. DuPage Cty.), pleaded Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act claims against Veriff, was removed to the Northern District of Illinois and remanded, and settled as a class action. Read again 15 September 2026: the $4,000,000 amount, class period and per-member payments recorded here earlier are on no filing read and were removed; the 2024 Morales v. Veriff suit pleaded the Illinois Identification Card Act and Driver's License Act, not BIPA, and was voluntarily dismissed, so McGowan is the only settled case. data_custody_risk is now 4.
- Veriff suffered a breach exposing exactly the data this criterion warns about. The Reed v. Veriff OU complaint (S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-00465) states that on 10 December 2025 Veriff notified Total Wireless that customers' private information was compromised, including name, government-issued ID, date of birth and address. Read again 15 September 2026: the class actions were filed 19-21 January 2026 (Reed, Stockton and McLaughlin, consolidated), not in March 2026, and on 22 June 2026 the court stayed the case until 21 December 2026 for the parties to settle or propose next steps. The earlier access date, notification start date and affected-customer count were not re-confirmed in this read and were removed.
Competitive position
Where Veriff leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 717.3 of 30 · best 18.0
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Veriff leads
- Published Price You Can Act On#2 / 7
- Verified Country & Document Coverage#1 / 7
- Will They Still Be Here In Three Years#1 / 7
Where it trails
- Biometric Custody & Enforcement History#5 / 7
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
ComplyCube#3 of 7 · score 77 · 1.0 point behind
Veriff leads on
- Verified Country & Document Coverage9 vs 8
- Will They Still Be Here In Three Years7 vs 5
ComplyCube leads on
- Biometric Custody & Enforcement History5 vs 4
Largest single reason Veriff is ahead: published criteria (+1.6 display points).Scenario cost: ComplyCube has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Sumsub#1 of 7 · score 80 · 2.0 points ahead
Veriff leads on
- Published Price You Can Act On9 vs 8
Sumsub leads on
- Biometric Custody & Enforcement History6 vs 4
Largest single reason Sumsub is ahead: published criteria (+1.8 display points).Scenario cost: Sumsub has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Didit#4 of 7 · score 74 · 4.0 points behind
Veriff leads on
- Verified Country & Document Coverage9 vs 6
- Will They Still Be Here In Three Years7 vs 3
Didit leads on
- Published Price You Can Act On10 vs 9
- Biometric Custody & Enforcement History5 vs 4
Largest single reason Veriff is ahead: published criteria (+4.7 display points).Scenario cost: Didit has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 78 · gap 2.0Why Sumsub ranks above Veriff
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 2.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisSumsubGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight17.318.0−1.8, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisSumsubPoints
Published Price You Can Act On · w3098+0.96, better
Biometric Custody & Enforcement History · w3046−1.92, worse
Net7880−2.0
Your scenario
Veriff is not priced for this scenario
The cheapest published tier that covers your usage. List price before any discount; add-ons priced separately are excluded. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
your cost/yr · default scenario — set your own
Transactions per year · your input1k
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 15 September 2026.
your cost/yrCost is stated as your cost/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
No evidence reading date recorded
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #2 to #3 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
Published Price You Can Act Onstrength 9 · weight 30Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Biometric Custody & Enforcement Historystrength 4 · weight 30Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Verified Country & Document Coveragestrength 9 · weight 25Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Will They Still Be Here In Three Yearsstrength 7 · weight 15Report an error——
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Exit failure (Veriff 7/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by Will They Still Be Here In Three Years · 15%
- Information failure (Veriff 4/10): the number is wrong or bought, or your data leaks.Scored by Biometric Custody & Enforcement History · 30%
Not assessed by this ranking: Liveness failure, Regulatory failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means. Also scored, as cost, quality or a summary of several families: Published Price You Can Act On (30%), Verified Country & Document Coverage (25%).
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Essential "$0.80 per verification", "$49/ month min." (Full auto). Plus "$1.39 per verification", "$99/ month min." (automated AI verification plus verification specialists). Premium "$1.89 per verification", "$209/ month min." Enterprise custom, "Best for 5000+ verifications/month". Add-ons per verification: "PEP & Sanctions check (+$0.64)", "Ongoing monitoring (+$0.09)", "Extended data retention 2 years (+$0.3)"; Plus and Premium also "Additional extracted data fields (+$0.3)"; add-ons are "Charged in addition to monthly minimum commitment." Default session data retention "3 months" (Essential), "6 months" (Plus, Premium). 15-day free trial "(up to a maximum of 50 Sessions)" with full access to the Premium plan, "No credit card needed." "There are no additional charges for set up or implementation." USD.Veriff — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Prices published in
- USDVeriff — official pricing page ↗ · 15 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not verified in this pass; no regulator licence applies to IDV vendors as such.
- Supported chains
- Not published
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Veriff: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
8 methodology entries
- currentCurrent verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 78, #2 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt kyc_compliance:veriff_kyc:2026.10.18:2e49305120e8
Are you Veriff? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.