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

Forter vs Riskified comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive Summary
 

Categories and Ranking

Forter
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
8th
Average Rating
9.0
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Riskified
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
6th
Average Rating
9.0
Reviews Sentiment
5.8
Number of Reviews
3
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 Forter is 3.9%, up from 3.2% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Riskified is 4.7%, up from 4.5% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fraud Detection and Prevention
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer1460475 - PeerSpot reviewer
Great at detecting fraudulent behavior and has reduced our financial losses
This solution is scalable. You can add more users onto it because they raise the level depending on the traffic that you give them. For instance, if I'm going to send 1,000 evaluations every minute and then 10,000 evaluations every minute, the solution needs to be able to adjust. For them, it was quite easy to scale. I was using this solution in a team of seven people. Maintenance was also carried out by the team. We worked with tickets and when we saw that there was a new version or we needed changes that required integration, anyone working on the team could do it.
JJ
Integrates well, reasonably priced, and the technical support is helpful
The most valuable features of this solution are the scoring and the yes, or no function. I am satisfied with the documentation it provides. It integrates well with other products The user interface could be more intuitive. I have been familiar with Riskified for three years. Riskified is a…

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"Dashboards, customization and the analytics are all good, it's user friendly."
"The most valuable features of this solution are the scoring and the yes, or no function."
"The scoring mechanism is good."
"Our clients have definitely avoided losing money on multiple occasions due to fraud."
 

Cons

"Lacking granularity on the acceptance/rejection fraud options."
"I can't think of any issues that we've faced that need to be improved."
"The fraud channel is a sensitive spot, so it's always complex."
"The user interface could be more intuitive."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

Information not available
"It is determined by the requirements of each company."
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
14%
Retailer
12%
Manufacturing Company
11%
Computer Software Company
9%
Computer Software Company
17%
Retailer
15%
Financial Services Firm
15%
Manufacturing Company
10%
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

Ask a question
Earn 20 points
What do you like most about Riskified?
The most valuable features of this solution are the scoring and the yes, or no function.
What needs improvement with Riskified?
The user interface could be more intuitive.
What advice do you have for others considering Riskified?
I think that it is a great partnership if you are looking for reliable fraud prevention for your company. I would rate Riskified an eight out of ten.
 

Comparisons

 

Learn More

Video not available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Kiwi.com, Fiverr, James Allen
ALDO, Macy's, Finish Line, Burlington, Burton Group, Sky-tours, GiftCards.com, Kirna Zabête
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.