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

Featurespace ARIC Fraud Hub vs ThreatMetrix comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Featurespace ARIC Fraud Hub
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
10th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
ThreatMetrix
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
5.1
Number of Reviews
8
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of November 2024, in the Fraud Detection and Prevention category, the mindshare of Featurespace ARIC Fraud Hub is 4.9%, up from 4.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of ThreatMetrix is 14.6%, up from 12.0% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fraud Detection and Prevention
 

Featured Reviews

Luis Inclan - PeerSpot reviewer
A flexible solution with a quick to navigate interface
The rule-writing language could be improved to make it more understandable. I was familiar with the Falcon expert language to write rules, so I had to get used to the new language used in this solution. In the next release, as an additional feature, it will be good to have the capability to sort and play visual effects in the fields. This will help to distinguish each record from the other. For example, we currently have a bar that shows if a person has a high or low score. If the score is 35%, the bar is considered low, and if the score moves to 99%, the bar increases. However, we don't have the capability as interface users to make this function appear in other fields where we want it displayed. We have only the score field, which is pre-configured with this functionality.
Sohom Roy - PeerSpot reviewer
Enables to identify and analyze real-time incidents and mitigate risks
The setup is not complex. It is pretty standard. I rate the ease of setup a nine out of ten. The deployment time depends on the applications and environment into which we integrate it. The product provides a lot of API documentation. The product is cloud-based. One or two people are enough to deploy the solution. We need some maintenance when new versions or patches need to be upgraded. It requires minimal maintenance.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The most valuable feature is its zero degradation model. You don't have to train the model every three to six months, and it automatically functions."
"It is a stable solution."
"The solution can be easily integrated with applications."
"There is excellent documentation available."
"Accessible custom rules with a monthly update on performance."
"The user interface, the portal, is very helpful in describing what attributes of concern are associated with the device."
"The solution is stable."
"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."
"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."
 

Cons

"The rule-writing language could be improved to make it more understandable."
"It would be useful if they could offer real-time processing."
"The tool is very expensive."
"We are only using one feature. We haven't found the other features to be very good or very powerful."
"The interface does look a bit outdated."
"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."
"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."
"We encountered a few issues with API calls to the solution."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"The pricing is reasonable. It is not cheap, but it is fair."
"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."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fraud Detection and Prevention solutions are best for your needs.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
45%
Computer Software Company
9%
Manufacturing Company
6%
Non Profit
4%
Financial Services Firm
48%
Computer Software Company
11%
Insurance Company
5%
Retailer
5%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

 

Also Known As

ARIC Fraud Hub, ARIC platform
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

TSYS, OpenBet, William Hill, Zapp, Credit Reference Agency, Responsible Gambling Trust, Betfair, kPMG, Camelot
Trip Advisor, Stone Hub, TD Bank, Rabobank, GoPro
Find out what your peers are saying about NICE, ThreatMetrix, FICO and others in Fraud Detection and Prevention. Updated: October 2024.
816,406 professionals have used our research since 2012.