Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is the #2 ranked solution in Fraud Detection and Prevention software. PeerSpot users give Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management an average rating of 7.6 out of 10. Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is most commonly compared to BAE Systems NetReveal: Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management vs BAE Systems NetReveal. Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is popular among the large enterprise segment, accounting for 65% of users researching this solution on PeerSpot. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a financial services firm, accounting for 35% of all views.
Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Buyer's Guide

Download the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2022

What is Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management?
Delivers real-time, customer-centric fraud prevention that supports a holistic, enterprise-wide fraud management program.

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management was previously known as Actimize, NICE Actimize, Nice Actimize Fraud and Authentication Management) .

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Customers
Associated Banc-Corp
Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Video

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management pricing:
  • "I don't like the length of our vendor contracts because it kills our flexibility."
  • "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 Reviews

    Filter by:
    Filter Reviews
    Industry
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Company Size
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Job Level
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Rating
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Considered
    Loading...
    Filter Unavailable
    Order by:
    Loading...
    • Date
    • Highest Rating
    • Lowest Rating
    • Review Length
    Search:
    Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
    Rishab Dhar - PeerSpot reviewer
    Actimize Implementor and Developer at a tech services company with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 5Leaderboard
    Offers robotics, machine learning, and enables us to reduce analysts
    Pros and Cons
    • "Nice's most valuable feature would be its rule engine."
    • "One of the problems that our clients generally talk about is the price of the product when they have to purchase the product and the licenses for it. Those are on the higher side."

    What is our primary use case?

    Right now, we are using Nice Actimize for our financial transactions. I have worked on multiple solutions to enrich the latest one that I'm working on. We have our payment systems and our normal transaction monitoring systems, detecting fraud cases. Based on that, they create alerts. Those alerts are ingested into Actimize. We have our case management system in which our analysts are shown the alerts with the respective data and with all the related alert details of the customers, and based on that they will be able to decide whether it is a potential fraud transaction or it is a false positive case.

    Then the analyst will decide based on the rules whether it's a fraud happening or it's a valid transaction. This is what we are doing right now. But prior to that, we also used Nice Actimize for the case management system in which you have the rules, the responsibilities, and the users. Meaning, if I'm an analyst, I will have certain access rights so I can see something. If I have a manager on top of me, he can see something more on the same alert. He can see something else. If he's a manager on a group level, maybe for America, he can see alerts from North America as well as South America. We have these units and based on that, the rules are defined and you will have a UI that will display anything for you. There was an HR case where there was an incident raised against an employee. A manual case is created which will go through all the flows for check and go to the employee. Then the HR and the employee will have a discussion. All the details will be stored in that entity that is the alert. Then based on that, there will be other steps.

    If it is a case in which there is sexual harassment or something, even if the police are involved, it will be stored. The details on the outcomes will be stored there, and then they will choose what to do with that case. Whether they want to do a formal complaint against that employee, or they want to terminate him, or is it a false case that was registered against him or something like that. This is one application besides the transactions. Actimize can be used in all these ways, but mostly the purpose of Actimize was anti-money laundering and suspicious activity, on the transaction and financial side of things.

    They have certain rules. For example, if I am using a credit card and my usual behavior for normal transactions is 100 Pounds to 500 Pounds in a week, but suddenly I make a transaction of more than 5,000 Pounds. It is possibly a suspicious activity indicating that somebody is trying to do something. Now somebody needs to decide whether this is actually suspicious. If I consider my case, there was an instance when I did a big transaction and I got a phone call from my credit card saying that "Is that you who did this transaction?" So somewhere, they might also be using a similar kind of a product and it helps the customers in preventing frauds from happening. This is an application of Nice.

    The application itself is deployed on a server and it can be used throughout sites. So for us, it could be banks. Banks have their sites, the transactions come in, and that is just one place where it is installed and users can access it through the net. Now the latest thing that has come in, is that they also have cloud implementation. Everything will be there in the cloud. So any maintenance or upgrades will be done in one place. The clients who are using this application will not bear the costs separately. So any more data will be directly provided to them. Even the cloud interfaces are available now.

    My company has a relationship with NICE Actimize as well as the client. NICE Actimize is the solution provider, the implementer, for our company, a bank. We have a business relationship with the bank as well as with NICE Actimize. NICE Actimize does not have a huge level of implementation so they do not deal directly with the banks. It is us or the other vendors or service providers who actually implement and interact with actual users. They depend on us for any new upgrades or what the client wants. It is also beneficial since the companies are pricing for each thing. So maybe our company would get something at a cheaper rate because we are providing them with insights into what the customer actually wants and what their needs will be in the future.

    How has it helped my organization?

    With the number of transactions that are happening, everyone has a card and all of us do some transactions, so the volume of transactions and suspicious transactions is huge. In order to go through all the transactions, you need to have a lot of analysts and a lot of manpower, and the time to decide whether it is a fraud or not a fraud is huge. By using this product, Actimize, you are able to reduce the number of analysts working on it and have all the data for the transaction, the customers, and other things involved, embedded on a single screen. 

    One of the criteria which determines a fraud is the country of origin of the transaction. There are red countries or blacklist countries, and certain things like that. For example, Afghanistan would be a country wherein if a person makes a transaction of more than 10,000 USD, it is considered that it could be a potential terrorist funding or some related activity. These kinds of things you can come to know. For example, there was a feature showing where the transaction was made or the card was swiped. You would also get that on a map - there will be a small link there. If an analyst wants to see where the actual transaction was done, he can also get that information right on that particular page. So all the details are in one place which makes it easier for an analyst to decide whether it is fraud or not.

    What is most valuable?

    Nice Actimize's most valuable feature would be its rule engine. The core of the application is that when transactions come in, there will be a set of business users, for example, a bank, who decides what constitutes fraud. Once they decide the criteria, all the transactions check against these filters on a real-time basis. If they find something suspicious, an alert will be created and the normal life cycle of the alert is opened and then goes to the analysis and all those steps will start. 

    Apart from that feature, one more thing that is good about this product is that it is not specific to a particular database. If you have an Excel sheet, you can always import that and create alerts from that. You can always connect the to Hadoop system. They have given those open-ended entities where you can click on it. It's like a plugin. You just create a small plugin and it will be able to search for data from any of the sources that are available. It is easy to use. The UI is pretty good, so it helps the analyst. Lastly, the robotics have come in. When there are a lot of alerts being generated, most of them follow certain patterns. So if we write a rule that these kinds of alerts should be directly closed or something like that, then even that can be done. Machine learning has now entered into the product. I haven't used it, but I know it is there now. People are using it.

    What needs improvement?

    In terms of what could be improved, one of the problems that our clients generally talk about is the price of the product when they have to purchase the product and the licenses for it. Those are on the higher side, in which case they would go ahead developing the built-in solution. Otherwise, the product is good compared to Actimize's competitors' products.

    They have provided a feature wherein you can develop your own goals and targets along with it. There are some applications that will restrict you from doing something. But this application always provides you a plugin. You develop a plugin, you configure something and you can add any data. You can introduce any source. You can write to any file. You can then read reports, whether it is a PDF or something, or you can directly interact with a third party, such as a government organization wherein there is a feature like RFI, a request for information.

    For example, let's consider there is a federal investigation going on and they need to have a response from a federal team. They will send out the RFI request. Once the federal team responds back on that, the response will automatically trigger an action once it is received. There are a lot of automated things and they haven't restricted anything. Even if there is a little drawback or a shortcoming, you can always create a Java code to use and just patch something in there. So in that sense, I would say that it is an open-ended product, it's not a closed environment.

    I haven't had the chance to work on robotics, so I can not comment on that part. But it looks like that is something that they have developed recently. The other issue is that if you want to learn about the application itself, the training is not available as an open-source. It is restricted and you have to pay for it and get a formal certification, and only then you would be able to implement something with that. Even if you try to Google it, you won't be able to find the actual code or how to configure it and all that information.

    Buyer's Guide
    Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management
    November 2022
    Learn what your peers think about Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2022.
    656,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using Nice Actimize for around four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Nice Actimize is a stable product. The product, is interacting with multiple systems. We had a screen wherein we were connecting to the Hadoop environment because the number of transactions was very huge. So we could not have it in our Oracle at the same time. They were present in Hadoop and the user would connect. There was a dashboard kind of a thing in which there were internal queries to fetch data from Hadoop and display to the users.

    But sometimes, due to connectivity between all the environments and the Hadoop environment itself, we would face difficulties. Basically it is the environment which may bring down the performance. But if the environment is proper and we know the volume that you are going to handle, I don't think this application goes down.

    There are updates available for Actimize. If there is an upgrade, you have to purchase a license for it depending on the agreement that you have with Actimize. If you have an agreement wherein there would be a fee for the upgrade, they will give a patch and you just run it once. There will be a fee which will be there with the patch, and they will just give us the steps that we need to do, and they will just be helping us out.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    In terms of scalability, around 100 or 200 users is a normal thing for Actimize. If there are thousands of users that are going to be added, then obviously there needs to be some abbreviation done on the available resources. For example, the environment is a smaller environment, which can handle only a certain number of requests. If that is the case, then obviously Actimize won't be able to support all those.

    When I say, "Won't be able to support" they would internally add load balancers and all those things would be implemented. If the docket is not able to handle a request, you will see a lag in the opening of a page or a request. But it is seldom that the application is unavailable as a whole. So the worst case would be if there is a slowness in the application. Sometimes we need to do a restart or something in the lower environments, but we do not see that in production. Because in production, all the environments are kept up to date and there are other processes checking the number of alerts and everything. So there are diagnostic functions going on. So any spike anywhere would be easily detected and a proper notification would be sent to the user.

    I am speaking as a developer who would be developing stuff in Actimize. There will be other people who would be the final users of Actimize. There are approximately 200 developers throughout my organization who are developing stuff for different vendors. In terms of the users that are actually using it, it could really be in the thousands because there are big banks and financial institutions which use this product and they have their own users. So some of them would be analysts, most of them would-be managers. And based on that, they function. I could just give an approximate figure here.

    This product is being used in multiple payment gateways. So even in the investment banking sector, you have Actimize being used. Basically, wherever payments and transactions are concerned, this application is used, including big banks, and the volume at which they are utilizing it would be quite huge. Because this application isn't cheap, it is quite expensive, they will only put in that kind of money if the volumes are huge. So instead of spending on people, they are spending on a product, which makes life easier because fewer people can manage it.

    How are customer service and support?

    We had one instance where we had to call NICE Actimize. There was an existing issue with their product which they were working on. At that time, they said that this would be coming in the next release. One of the features or one of the PDFs were not working. It was not a showstopper, but it was a small issue in which we had a call with them. We told them we're facing an issue and about everything we had tried, and technically they were able to help us. They also asked us to try multiple things. After that, once it was still not working, then they said that, "Let us come out with a permanent fix that we should do for the next release, and you will get a free upgrade." I would rate the technical support an eight out of 10.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    Initially, we used normal Java programs in which we had to develop everything from scratch. But using Nice Actimize gave us the freedom to just configure and use it. The focus is mainly not on developing, but on implementation when we use this product. Prior to this, we did not work on any tools or assets.

    Unfortunately, I do not have any experience working on similar solutions. Like I mentioned, there are two other solutions that do provide a similar thing. One is Mantas and the other one is Morale. For our current client, these two systems are used to detect fraud transactions, but Actimize is used to display and for the case management. The case management part in Actimize is better than the competitive solutions.

    As I mentioned earlier, this product is open-ended so you can never say "it is not possible" in Actimize. Maybe they don't give it as a solution, but you can always develop that on your end and plug it in, whereas this is not possible with other solutions. This is what I have heard. We were picking solutions for a prospective client who was interested in going into this area, and we had to give a description of all the solutions available for them to decide which one to go for. I was a part of Actimize, so I just heard the other parts as well. This was what I read.

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup is a running of files. There are the shell scripts and everything runs with a normal installation. There will be a team from Actimize itself. They will help us out installing the product and if there are problems, they would give the support. Once the installation is done or there are upgrades, you just click execute this file and it will do the rest all by itself.

    It's pretty straightforward.

    The deployment and installation of the product would take around a week. A week in the sense that it will be around a couple of days, and then there will be certain checks done, whether everything is working fine or not. Once the environment is ready there can be different solutions that you can deploy or create.

    Once the Actimize environment is there you can create your own. Whether you want to do a case monitoring on a transaction, or you want to do something related to HR or any other thing that is configured. That is something that you develop. Basically, it is like your Java. So you have the Java environment installed, then you can do anything on that.

    Installation of Java would take a maximum of an hour or so. Setting up your parts and everything. Similarly for this, it will have to take day or two for the Actimize team to analyze whether everything has been set up properly. They will probably give a week of time wherein they would say that the environment is ready for you to use. In case of any issues, like the environment is going down or there are some upgrade that was not present, they will be responsible.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I'm actually not sure about this as this would be done on a client-to-company basis. Most probably it is on a yearly basis or a bi-yearly basis. Or it could also be greater than that because if a big bank is going to put money into some solution, they won't be doing it for a shorter period. They would like to carry it on for a longer period. I do not have an exact idea of this.

    What Actimize has done with the standard license is to give the amount of flexibility you can have and the type of solution you want and has customized the pricing based on that. If you only want an AML solution, you will be charged separately. If you only want an activity monitoring solution, you will be charged separately. Or if you want a custom solution, you will be charged separately. If you want a custom solution as well as something you want to develop and use as plugins, then it will have different pricing altogether. So they have divided the pricing based on that.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would definitely recommend this solution to other users. From a developer perspective, it's easy for me to implement any new change. If we consider the cases of the requests or what we want as a financial institution, they change rapidly. The markets change and the rules change, regulations change. Implementation must be quick. It is easier to optimize. This is from a developer's perspective. From a user's perspective, you can actually make a change in your application on the fly, which will make you better than your competitor banks or financial institutions, which will affect your customers' profits because it is a service you are giving to a client, which in turn gives their services to the customer.

    If you are giving our services to a bank, they would be customers for the bank, which would benefit them. If the bank is going to meet the changes quickly, if there is a new method of payment or something that can be included faster from a bank's perspective, that is a consideration. So definitely on the bank side, as well as the development side, I would recommend this to people who are considering this solution.

    As a developer, we used to develop everything from scratch and stayed more time in a building, with the same stuff over and over again. But after using this product, rather than recreating the same thing, or reinventing the wheel, you can always make use of the existing things. I see something more quickly. You can implement things more quickly rather than spending your effort on things that don't matter at the end of the day.

    On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management a nine. Just keeping one point for the scope of improvement.

    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Implementer
    PeerSpot user
    AVP, Compliance at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    State of the art, 2017. Reliable but outdated
    Pros and Cons
    • "It's a very good case management system."
    • "I would say — Actimize is not being moved forward by Nice."

    What is our primary use case?

    It's an integral part of our surveillance.

    Specifically, I do futures surveillance across all products. I look at futures trades for in-house and customers across fixed income, equities, and FX. That's my specific use case, but my colleagues, who do product surveillance in fixed income, use a Global Actimize solution to also look at a specific products like OTC treasuries versus fixed income futures and other products. 

    Our company is global. We have six direct market access sites in the world. The US is one, the UK is another and Hong Kong and Singapore are three and four. Then we have two more that are small DMA sites. There are people at each DMA site that use Actimize. In the US, it's about 20 people, which is comparable to Hong Kong, which covers Singapore; in the UK, it's probably 30. Then we have an offshore team in India, composed of about 20 people that touch Actimize. Finally, at the other DMA sites, just a handful, maybe five.

    We're fully invested in this solution, but we also have three other surveillance systems at level one, and Actimize is not the future for my firm. There's another system called Trading Hub, which is popular in Europe — that's the way of the future for us, for better or worse. We don't have a demise date for Actimize yet. It's at least a couple of years out, but we're trying to migrate towards Trading Hub and internal solutions. As of today, and for next year, we'll be fully invested in Actimize — we rely on it.

    How has it helped my organization?

    In terms of management information (MI), it isn't push-button, and by that, I mean that all the MI we need for specific alerts or specific clients has to be extracted, sometimes tediously by individual alerts. Some Mi is more automated. Maybe we could code the extractions to be more complete, if money was unlimited, which it is not. 

    In any case, we can track MI internally to see where potential problems or hotspots may be occurring. From a bank standpoint, it allows us to look at which clients or house traders might be problematic, and which rule-sets are running hot.

    What is most valuable?

    It's a very good case management system. We use that at level-one, so it's a first-pass review, and all our reviews have to be reviewed. It's a very good case manager for making comments and saving the comments and having an audit trail around the comments. 

    Our regulators, which are government regulators, and our auditors at the bank want complete audit trails. They want to understand why an alert was closed or escalated and they want to be able to randomly pull alerts and make sure that we're doing what we promise we're doing. Actimize allows us to provide that evidence when we're asked.

    What needs improvement?

    We use a separate system for level-two escalations — those are deeper investigations. If I was designing a tool, I guess it would be able to track a case from level-one to level-two to the conclusion, so that we wouldn't have to use multiple instances of different software. A more holistic surveillance approach would be a step in the right direction.

    In my experience, I've never seen any facility on Actimize to facilitate level two and conclusions. If they did go in that direction, it would allow firms like mine to drop yet another piece of software that we use to track level two and level three escalations.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using this solution since January of 2018.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's very stable. Most of the problems that occur in our world tend to be about data feeds or processes not running, but Actimize itself is pretty stable.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It's very scalable. We use it around the world for many different types of alerts and products. It's very scalable.

    How are customer service and support?

    My experience with Nice technical support is that they are responsive. I would give them a rating of five out of ten — on a good day.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Neutral

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I've used HP Autonomy/ It's functional in a more primal way.

    How was the initial setup?

    At my previous company, the initial setup was a bit of a stumble for us; however, I think that was our fault — we didn't deploy enough resources to give it a smooth launch. We didn't have as many resources as I think we should have had in the IT department to make the transition more smoothly. When it was launched into production, it had a lot of bugs in it, which we had to spend three to six months working out so that it would become a more usable tool. 

    By the time I joined my current company, it was fully functional. We still are improving the rule-sets within Actimize, but Actimize itself runs very smoothly.

    What about the implementation team?

    At my previous company, a combination of an overseas team and a domestic team, including productive product project managers of roughly 12 to 15 people were responsible for getting it up and running. I'm not even counting the people who were trying to find bugs and clarify it, but those were the people directly involved in touching the back of the application.

    Deployment took three to five months before it was usable — we had a bad launch.

    It's constantly becoming more sophisticated. We may find that we need to change the coding in a ruleset. We have a JIRA process where we suggest improvements in rule sets and it's constantly under improvement. I would assume it's very much the same for other banks. We have to make our systems more sophisticated because financial crimes get more sophisticated.

    What was our ROI?

    Don't know.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    I'm not involved in the licensing negotiations, but personally, I don't like the length of our vendor contracts because it kills our flexibility. I understand why they do it though. I know they're doing it for predictability and such, but from my perspective, it doesn't allow us to be as flexible. My bank and several other banks are very large and they don't value flexibility. They value consistency more than flexibility. So I think it was a choice based on the size of the bank and the size of the contract. I don't know what the numerical value of the contract is.

    We have a support contract. When we make changes, there are additional charges for making new changes or additions to our standard contract. I also don't know the value of those, but I have heard conversations on conference calls that there's going to be a cost involved with Actimize for making changes beyond a certain point. So, we have a basic support contract, and beyond that, we have to pay for additional changes.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We opted to choose Trading Hub. I think there's a company called Smarsh that we spoke with and there was a third company whose name I don't recall. These are multi-year contracts with these vendors. For this reason, we take our time and choose very slowly and deliberately because when we make changes, it affects our whole global operations. So it has effects a lot of downstream resources.

    In our experience, when these products are launched, they're highly supported by the vendor, in this case, Nice. As they get more mature, the vendor wants to develop new solutions and charge more money, and the new solutions are more sophisticated and do more things and have more buttons and such, but they start to slow down and stop supporting their older products. I would say — Actimize is not being moved forward by Nice. We have to move towards a new platform. I guess we want some diversification. We use a lot of Nice products for coms and voice recordings and I think maybe there was just a sense that we're over-relying on one single company. Those are the main reasons why we are switching solutions in the near future.

    Actimize is built for surveillance that is more the standard of excellence between 2010 to maybe 2017. It tends to be threshold rule-based and the new threshold, the new software, and the new vendor applications tend to be more statistically based or artificial intelligence/ machine learning-based. That's the future, the current state for some of our competitors, in the future for the rest of our competitors and ourselves is to move towards smarter alerts that look at transactions without fixed thresholds and look at things in the context of what else is coming through our pipes — Nice Actimize is just not there.

    What other advice do I have?

    From our experience, when these products are launched, they're highly supported by the vendor, in this case, Nice. But as they get more mature, the vendor wants to develop new solutions and charge more money, and the new solutions are more sophisticated and do more things and have more buttons and such, but they start to slow down and stop supporting their older products. I would say — Actimize is not being moved forward by Nice. We have to move towards a new platform because we want some diversification. We use a lot of Nice products for coms and voice recordings. I think maybe there was just a sense that we're over-relying on one single company. That's the main reason why we are going to switch solutions in the near future.

    My advice for anyone looking to implement this solution: I suggest that they look elsewhere. There is a lot of new innovation coming from other firms.

    There's no single big lesson to be learned. It's a great starting point for small to medium-sized banks. It's very comprehensive and scalable, but when you get to more sophisticated operations, I don't think it's very forward-looking — I don't think it's a great solution.

    Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution rating of seven.

    It's very reliable but it's dated, it's not something that I would want to start deploying today unless the size of my operation dictated that I used this solution.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Private Cloud
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management
    November 2022
    Learn what your peers think about Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2022.
    656,862 professionals have used our research since 2012.
    VP Complience at a financial services firm with 10,001+ employees
    Real User
    Top 20Leaderboard
    A very scalable solution with expansive transaction monitoring fleet and impressive ability to customize a model
    Pros and Cons
    • "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 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."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are using it for transaction monitoring. Actimize has multiple modules, and we are using the SAM module. We are using version 8.5 of this module.

    What is most valuable?

    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.

    What needs improvement?

    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.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    I would rate it a five out of ten in terms of stability. It requires daily maintenance, which contributes to less stability. If daily maintenance wasn't required, I would rate it very high in terms of stability.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    It is very scalable. I would rate it a nine out of ten in terms of scalability. 

    We currently have around 60 users. It is being used for multiple business lines in our bank. Its usage is very high. As far as expansion is concerned, there are no plans to expand its usage for the next two or three years.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I don't directly reach out to them. This is something our in-house technical support team does, but based on what I hear from our technical support team, their turnaround time is average. Our team is not extremely happy with their customer service. When they open a ticket, it has to go through a lot of bureaucracy. They open a ticket, and someone from the Actimize side evaluates that ticket to see whether it is critical or not. They get back based on its criticality.

    How was the initial setup?

    Its initial setup is very complex. It took three months because it involved a lot of troubleshooting.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    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.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We evaluated other options. The main reason for choosing Actimize was that it is a market leader in the AML transaction monitoring space, which is a huge plus when it comes to the regulator or even optics associated with it.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would recommend this solution, but this recommendation comes with a disclaimer that a big support team is required to maintain this solution daily. It is a good solution, but you should be ready to spend a lot on the technical support team.

    I would rate Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management an eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Director at a printing company with 51-200 employees
    Real User
    Good at pattern recognition, good scalability, and capable of processing large amounts of data
    Pros and Cons
    • "The core engine seems to be better than the rest for pattern recognition. It is able to process large amounts of data."
    • "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."

    What is our primary use case?

    I use it for financial claims monitoring. I am using its previous version.

    What is most valuable?

    The core engine seems to be better than the rest for pattern recognition. It is able to process large amounts of data.

    What needs improvement?

    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.

    Their professional services group could certainly use a boost. Their QA process is getting better, but it is still not where it should be. Their release QA crew could certainly use improvement.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using this solution for about six years.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Its scalability is good. They've got that covered.

    Our clients are large businesses. It is used by analysts, and roughly, throughout the group, there are 3,000 to 4,000 users.

    How are customer service and support?

    I would rate them a seven out of 10. They need to improve on the response time. The level two support is good. It is the level one support that needs a little bit of coaching. This is the struggle that pretty much every software development firm goes through.

    How would you rate customer service and support?

    Neutral

    How was the initial setup?

    It is quite complex. It is not straightforward.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would go for it. With all the negatives, it is still the best in the market.

    I would rate it an eight out of 10.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    PeerSpot user
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.
    Updated: November 2022
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.