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

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management vs SAS Fraud Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 12, 2024

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

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authe...
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
17
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SAS Fraud Management
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
8th
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 March 2025, in the Fraud Detection and Prevention category, the mindshare of Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is 6.5%, up from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Fraud Management is 4.7%, down from 4.7% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fraud Detection and Prevention
 

Featured Reviews

Jahnavi Koppala - PeerSpot reviewer
A good designer for the UI, stable, and scalable
I give the solution a ten out of ten. Unlike other technologies, Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is partially pre-built, making it easy to understand what needs to be done and how to complete the work. Furthermore, due to the pre-existing code, there is no need to start from scratch, providing a better understanding of the current situation and what needs to be implemented. Our organization moved to Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management because the solution is an upgraded version and also it provides many benefits as we can easily activate rules. Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is very convenient and it provides easy access to everything. When utilizing the solution for the first time, always start with a lower environment such as a development environment. Only use Dell and SIT, and do not go directly to production. The solution may have an impact on the bank and large transactions.
AK
Monitor multiple channels with a single platform
Each bank has a lot of different verticals. Before, for each and every vertical, they had to implement a different fraud solution. Presently, the main purpose of SAS is to maintain a centralized platform for all of the verticals — like agriculture, NSME, and home loans. For each and every vertical, they created a centralized platform where the bank can monitor everything from one system. That is the main purpose of SAS Fraud Management. It is a little bit costly. Otherwise, it's pretty good. Suppose you are going to create a data science model or an analytical model. With Python, you have to write long subcodes, but with SAS, you just have to drag and drop those things. If you know all of the logic and all of the theories, then it's a very comfortable tool to use. The security is also very good. That's why most of the industry is adopting SAS. Data security is very good because the Reserve Bank of India has approved it. That said, almost all the banks are now implementing SAS as an all-in-one solution.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"The process and technology in the solution are very fast, and it is bug-free."
"The alerts are the most valuable feature because we have different alerts. Different data is fed to Actimize. It alerts us if a transaction happened from a certain place."
"They have a very expansive transaction monitoring fleet. They have a lot of models and rules to choose from. Its flexibility or ability to customize a model is very impressive as compared to other platforms."
"It's a very good case management system."
"The most valuable feature is automation which makes our transaction capture 40 percent easier."
"The most valuable feature is the designer, which allows us to connect to UI and build things directly, such as creating a platform with our synchronizing policy manager rules, without any additional requirements."
"The core engine seems to be better than the rest for pattern recognition. It is able to process large amounts of data."
"I like the tracking methodology. Though it was implemented on-premises, the compliance is compatible with it. It will have certain modifications with RPM and APR. It has good exposure from a compliance point of view."
"The solution is easy to use."
"The security is also very good."
 

Cons

"Could include additional customization"
"I would like for it to proactively give suggestions or hints before initiating the transaction. It could make use of the data that has already occurred, like machine learning. It should learn patterns from specific countries."
"Processes don't function when front end is down."
"It is complex in terms of daily maintenance. Other detection platforms run on a 15-day or one-month window, whereas this particular platform runs daily. Therefore, it requires daily maintenance. If there is a delay due to this daily maintenance, it creates a snowball effect impacting the subsequent days. It takes a lot of effort to catch up and get into BAU mode. It would be great if they could include certain features to make the daily processing less complex, but I don't see that happening. It is a complex product, and with each version release, it is just becoming more and more complex."
"The solution needs to mitigate and provide an update for one listener process that keeps failing."
"It has become too complex for its own good with a lot of versions. They are trying to do too much. Instead of keeping it sort of traditional and keeping the core search engine as a standalone and having analytical bolt-ons, they have decided to jam it all into the same product, which made the product overly complex and difficult to implement."
"It would be better if it integrated with other tools. Actimize uses many databases, and everything on Actimize has been deployed to the database. On the customer side, on the front end side, if they focus more on integrating with other applications, it can make the tool better. The reporting feature and dashboards could be better. In the next release, I would like them to incorporate a Tableau-type reporting structure within this tool."
"Its user interface could be better."
"Occasionally, there are some mechanisms that can work a bit slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"It is reasonable for enterprise customers."
"I don't like the length of our vendor contracts because it kills our flexibility."
"We need a separate license for each of the packages, such as the core package, self-development package, and customization package."
"I don't know how licensing is handled in the current organization. I know that Actimize provides an option for yearly licensing because that's what we had in my previous job."
"Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is an expensive product."
"If your company has the budget, I would absolutely recommend SAS."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fraud Detection and Prevention solutions are best for your needs.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
43%
Computer Software Company
8%
Comms Service Provider
6%
Energy/Utilities Company
6%
Financial Services Firm
33%
Computer Software Company
14%
Comms Service Provider
7%
Manufacturing Company
7%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

 

Also Known As

Actimize, NICE Actimize
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Associated Banc-Corp
Nets
Find out what your peers are saying about Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management vs. SAS Fraud Management and other solutions. Updated: March 2025.
842,388 professionals have used our research since 2012.