Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Amazon Fraud Detector vs SAS Fraud Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Amazon Fraud Detector
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
24th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
7.8
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SAS Fraud Management
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
11th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of February 2026, in the Fraud Detection and Prevention category, the mindshare of Amazon Fraud Detector is 1.6%, up from 0.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Fraud Management is 2.8%, down from 4.4% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fraud Detection and Prevention Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
SAS Fraud Management2.8%
Amazon Fraud Detector1.6%
Other95.6%
Fraud Detection and Prevention
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1461372 - PeerSpot reviewer
Graduate Analytics Consultant at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Quickly and reliably identifies potentially fraudulent activity
The problem I was facing, from a machine learning perspective, it only had a supervised learning capability. You would have to provide your data live, but in fraud, the pattern of the fraudsters keeps changing and it's impossible to provide data labels. That's where the user unsupervised learning comes in handy — you don't have to tell them, "okay, this is fraud and this is not fraud." If unsupervised learning was also incorporated with Amazon SageMaker, that would be really cool. I am talking about anomaly detection algorithms, like isolation, forest, or anything on the neural network side for anomaly detection, including autoencoders. These are some things which companies would really like to use. There was also a problem with latency. In fraud detection, everything needs to be happening in real-time, but some of the algorithms ran for three to four minutes, which is not a viable option.
reviewer1562526 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Practice at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Scalable and easy to use but could have better technical support
The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance has been very good so far. That said, from my perspective, has had some issues with stability and performance issues in that they have a lot of data and it has some indexing and mechanisms that work a bit slow.
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fraud Detection and Prevention solutions are best for your needs.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
No data available
Financial Services Firm
22%
Comms Service Provider
20%
Computer Software Company
9%
Educational Organization
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
No data available
 

Also Known As

AWS Cloud9 IDE, Cloud9 IDE
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Expedia, Intuit, Royal Dutch Shell, Brooks Brothers
Nets
Find out what your peers are saying about ThreatMetrix, NICE, BioCatch and others in Fraud Detection and Prevention. Updated: January 2026.
881,757 professionals have used our research since 2012.