We performed a comparison between BioCatch and ThreatMetrix based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about NICE, ThreatMetrix, FICO and others in Fraud Detection and Prevention."It can track mouse movements as well as the actual oriental moments of such as the movement of devices, how they are held, and the angles which at they are held. All these are captured for customers and a behavioral profile is built for the customer over a period of time. This would be matched against any fraudulent behavior. If, for example, suddenly a customer account seems to be accessed by our profile, which is not one particular customer account, if the movements or habits are suspect, we can catch the fraud and shut it down."
"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."
"It is a stable solution."
"Accessible custom rules with a monthly update on performance."
"There is excellent documentation available."
"The user interface, the portal, is very helpful in describing what attributes of concern are associated with the device."
"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 solution is stable."
"BioCatch is one of the fraud detection tools which also has machine learning capabilities and it has what is called a machine learning model feature. It is run in the background. The consequence of those machine models is it is complex to perform data functions and the activity and programming techniques. The decision-making for determining what's happening within those models is a little bit complex and not at all transparent. It's not easy for businesses to understand how the model is using the data of the bank customers in order to come to the assumption it does."
"The interface does look a bit outdated."
"It would be useful if they could offer real-time processing."
"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."
"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 are only using one feature. We haven't found the other features to be very good or very powerful."
"We encountered a few issues with API calls to the solution."
"Could be more intuitive and user friendly."
Earn 20 points
BioCatch is ranked 5th in Fraud Detection and Prevention while ThreatMetrix is ranked 2nd in Fraud Detection and Prevention with 7 reviews. BioCatch is rated 8.0, while ThreatMetrix is rated 8.2. The top reviewer of BioCatch writes "Stable with good behavioral biometrics and great technical support". On the other hand, the top reviewer of ThreatMetrix writes "Stable with a good interface and offers excellent event reports". BioCatch is most compared with IBM Trusteer, Featurespace ARIC Fraud Hub, F5 Shape Security, Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management and FICO Falcon Platform, whereas ThreatMetrix is most compared with FICO Falcon Platform, Featurespace ARIC Fraud Hub, iovation FraudForce, IBM Trusteer and Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management.
See our list of best Fraud Detection and Prevention vendors.
We monitor all Fraud Detection and Prevention reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
