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

FICO Falcon Platform vs Nudetect 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

FICO Falcon Platform
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
3rd
Average Rating
8.6
Reviews Sentiment
5.5
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
Nudetect
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
13th
Average Rating
6.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
1
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of July 2025, in the Fraud Detection and Prevention category, the mindshare of FICO Falcon Platform is 8.5%, up from 7.8% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of Nudetect is 0.6%, down from 0.6% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fraud Detection and Prevention
 

Featured Reviews

reviewer2511618 - PeerSpot reviewer
Real-time capability, consortium data model but offline analysis of transactions is not flexible
FICO users are business users, not developers. When setting up rules or parameters, some coding is required, and the learning curve is quite steep. This is a disadvantage of FICO. Additionally, the offline analysis of transactions is not flexible. Transactions need to be flagged as fraud to show up in the analysis, making it difficult to identify false negatives. The Identity Resolution Engine (IRE), an extension to FICO Falcon Platform, is helpful. However, integration with FICO Falcon Fraud Manager can be challenging due to its rigid template and data format requirements. This can cause delays in development and integration, potentially postponing projects by a month or two. AI is another thing they could improve is how they create the data model for my bank's detection data. From what I understand, they already have the capability to do that. But the data being processed in my bank, the ones they can process, is not really much. Maybe it's just a mistake on my part. But in terms of AI other than machine learning that they've already implemented, I have not seen any significant use case.
reviewer2379738 - PeerSpot reviewer
Used to identify frauds, but its accuracy could be improved
It is highly unlikely that I will recommend the solution to other users. Technologies have advanced over time, and there are better tools in the market. I'm not sure if Nudetect has been able to maintain its pace with other training tools. Nudetect is good for certain organizations, but it may not fit everyone. It depends upon the level of security and risk appetite organizations may have based on their responsibility to regulators. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

Quotes from Members

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

Pros

"It can make real-time decisions or real-time declines."
"FICO is working on a local model specifically for Brazil, whereas tools from Oracle and other vendors are only developed for general use. I haven't seen any other vendors who think like that until now."
"We integrate the solution with our Java on the UI and try to identify fraud."
 

Cons

"I've had bad experiences with FICO support. At the bank, we've faced critical problems where we only had minutes to find the solution, and it's hard to explain quickly. We contacted FICO, but they told us it was beyond their scope of support. They try to triage the call by asking us how much money we're losing, but I can't go into that."
"When setting up rules or parameters, some coding is required, and the learning curve is quite steep."
"The tool is not very accurate, and its accuracy could be improved."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"FICO is one of the best fraud detection platforms. However, a small bank might find it too expensive. In that case, I would agree it's probably not worth it. However, it's a no-brainer if your bank has 50 million accounts and 7 million credit card transactions daily."
"The functionality is fine, but the price is getting more expensive."
Information not available
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fraud Detection and Prevention solutions are best for your needs.
862,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
42%
Computer Software Company
15%
Comms Service Provider
5%
Government
3%
No data available
 

Company Size

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

Questions from the Community

What needs improvement with FICO Falcon Platform?
FICO users are business users, not developers. When setting up rules or parameters, some coding is required, and the learning curve is quite steep. This is a disadvantage of FICO. Additionally, the...
What is your primary use case for FICO Falcon Platform?
I use FICO Falcon app manager. I think it was from 2019, but I'm not quite sure. Maybe it was 2017. I'm a customer of the product, and I use it for bottom-line and operational risk. For the granula...
What do you like most about Nudetect?
We integrate the solution with our Java on the UI and try to identify fraud.
What needs improvement with Nudetect?
The tool is not very accurate, and its accuracy could be improved. I saw many false positives with the solution.
What advice do you have for others considering Nudetect?
It is highly unlikely that I will recommend the solution to other users. Technologies have advanced over time, and there are better tools in the market. I'm not sure if Nudetect has been able to ma...
 

Also Known As

Falcon Platform
Nudata Nudetect
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Information Not Available
Clydesdale Bank (incorporating Yorkshire Bank), Danske Bank, Metro Bank, Monzo Bank, Starling Bank.
Find out what your peers are saying about ThreatMetrix, NICE, FICO and others in Fraud Detection and Prevention. Updated: June 2025.
862,077 professionals have used our research since 2012.