Billing models: transaction-based vs. record-based
We are often asked what sets our pricing apart from that of other providers. And we regularly see that prospective customers comparing quotes are – through no fault of their own – comparing apples with oranges. More often than not the reason is the billing model. Most providers use what is called transaction-based pricing: every single sanctions list check counts as one transaction.
An example: a regular customer is to be screened continuously against the current sanctions. In the month in question the sanctions lists were updated 20 times. Screening that one customer continuously against the latest sanctions list therefore produces 20 transactions per month – roughly 240 transactions per year, assuming the lists change 20 times a month (a high but realistic figure).
Our model: billing by number of records
We only use the transaction-based model described above in specific cases, for example when our API is used for individual checks, or at a customer's request (there are scenarios where it does make sense). As a rule, however, we base our prices on the number of records to be screened. It therefore makes no difference to us how often the sanctions lists or PEP lists change. Our software was deliberately built to screen continuously and fully automatically. Anything else makes little sense for regular customers, suppliers or employees, because: what good is a check carried out today if the sanctions lists change tomorrow and your business partner is suddenly sanctioned?
That is why our plans talk about list screenings being included in the price. A list screening is the continuous, automatic screening of one customer, one supplier or one employee. Let us assume you have 1,400 customers, 200 suppliers and 50 employees, and you want all of them screened against the EU sanctions lists – automatically, of course. That adds up to 1,650 records, i.e. 1,650 list screenings. In this case our easy EU 2,000 plan would be the right one for you. And it is then completely irrelevant how often the sanctions lists change, because easycompliance always screens fully automatically against the very latest lists.
Conclusion
When you compare quotes, always look closely at what is actually being offered. Otherwise you may end up paying a great deal of money for sanctions list screening and still have no real certainty, because your transaction budget is not sufficient to screen all business partners continuously against the latest sanctions lists.
Here is an example. You have 7,000 customers, 1,000 suppliers and 300 employees, and roughly 1,500 customers are added each year.
Provider X offers: 100,000 transactions per year for EUR 1,295.00. Provider Y offers: 10,000 transactions per month for EUR 70.00. We offer: easy EU 15,000, i.e. the daily automatic screening of up to 15,000 customers, suppliers and/or employees for EUR 75.00 per month plus a one-off EUR 250.00 – that is EUR 1,150 in the first year and EUR 900.00 in every following year.
With provider X's offer you can screen your entire set of business contacts against the current sanctions lists no more than once a month. If you were to screen with provider X every time the sanctions lists change – roughly 20 times a month – your transactions would not even last a single month. With provider Y you can likewise screen your entire data set only once a month; if the sanctions lists change even once more in that month (which they always do), you can no longer screen at all. With our plan you can have up to 15,000 records screened automatically every day: your current customers, suppliers and employees – 8,300 records – plus plenty of headroom for new business. You never have to worry about transaction quotas of any kind, no matter how often the sanctions lists change.
So, regardless of the provider, always make sure the quota – whatever form it takes – is large enough to cover every change to the sanctions lists continuously. As described above, screening today is of no use to you if a change to the sanctions lists affects you tomorrow.
Aside: when does transaction-based billing make sense?
It makes particular sense for online shops, where only a few hours typically pass between order, payment and shipping. The sanctions list check is then built into the ordering process: before the customer can complete the order, the system checks whether they are sanctioned. Since regular customers are re-checked with every order anyway, no automatic sanctions list screening is needed for them (it is, however, still needed for suppliers and employees).
Transaction-based billing also makes sense in recruitment processes – in applicant tracking systems, for example, because a rejected applicant does not need to be screened again in future. It can also be worthwhile for process-related (KYC) checks, or for longer-running projects and planning phases. If in doubt, just talk to us.
(Note: everything set out above applies equally to PEP screening.)
Related articles
Last reviewed: