Every category where a model named Sanction Scanner for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
AML and transaction monitoring	Tax and compliance	13%	3 of 108	6%	17	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Sanction Scanner yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Sanction Scanner across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	2	0	1	0	3
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	0	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Perplexity Sonar	1	0	0	1	2
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	1	0	0	1
Mistral Small	0	1	0	0	1
DeepSeek V4 Flash	1	0	1	0	2
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	1	0	0	1
Kimi K2	0	1	0	0	1
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	1	0	0	1
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	0	0	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	1	1	0	0	2

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct7 labels1

Paraphrase6 labels4

Comparative5 labels3not counted in share

Budget-constrained22 labels11

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative6 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative48 labels in all, every segment counted; 16 of the 20 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Sanction Scanner if you want the best all-around balance of features and usability.” GPT-5.4 mini · AML monitoring · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“Positioned as a budget-friendly AML for businesses of any size with tier-based pricing.” Muse Glimmer 30B · AML monitoring · budget prompt · first choice

“1. Sanction Scanner - Cost-effective screening solution - API-first approach” MiniMax M2.5 · AML monitoring · budget prompt · first choice

“Sanction Scanner (Best Overall for Tight Budgets)” Claude Haiku 4.5 · AML monitoring · budget prompt · first choice

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“Explicitly described as screening-only / sanctions and PEP, not full transaction monitoring.” Perplexity Sonar · AML monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Sanction Scanner, over the 48 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Sanction Scanner was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ComplyAdvantage35 of 4812Compare →

Flagright19 of 484Compare →

NICE Actimize16 of 481Not among the top eight

Unit2114 of 482Compare →

Sumsub14 of 481Not among the top eight

Ondato13 of 482Compare →

Alessa13 of 481Compare →

AML Watcher12 of 481Not among the top eight

iDenfy10 of 480Not among the top eight

Oracle Financial Crime and Compliance Management9 of 480Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Sanction Scanner. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 48 of the 48 answers that named Sanction Scanner and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

ondato.com36

fraudio.com28

thecfoclub.com25

guideflow.com22

sphinxhq.com22

sanctionscanner.comYour site20

g2.com19

us.fitgap.com18

fraud.net16

spotsaas.com16

202 of the 222 domain citations in answers naming Sanction Scanner came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

ondato.com/blog/best-aml-software36

thecfoclub.com/tools/best-aml-compliance-software25

sphinxhq.com/blog-posts/best-aml-software22

guideflow.com/blog/aml-software21

us.fitgap.com/search/anti-money-laundering-software/small-business17

bureau.id/resources/blog/transaction-monitoring-software15

amlwatcher.com/blog/aml-software-vendors14

cside.com/blog/best-transaction-monitoring-software14

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

sanctionscanner.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Sanction Scanner takes 13% of first choices and ComplyAdvantage takes 33%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “aml and transaction monitoring platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “aml and transaction monitoring platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 90 a month (“sanction scanner”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 1 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 20,112 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 6,380 · 59 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 4,861
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

18 ads · 9 image, 9 text · 12 shown in the last 30 days

First shown August 2023, as Codevist Teknoloji Anonim Şirketi, verified. Ads started 2025-11 to 2026-10: 12 in the year, 6 before.

On Google's pages: 1 2 3 4

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

13%

rank 3 of 108 in AML monitoring

Segment leader

33%

ComplyAdvantage

First choices: 16 across its categories
Named in: 48 answers
Its own site cited: in 48 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on sanctionscanner.com

716

subdomains included

Content

386

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest	Categories named
Blog	329	0	2020-08-24	AML monitoring
Comparison	20	4	2026-08-31
Glossary or explainer	19	0	2026-01-15
Case study	7	undated
Webinar or virtual event	6	undated
Report or ebook	4	undated
Template or tool	1	0	2023-09-18

Most recent

2026-08-31Sanctions vs pep true match when to block and when to scrutinize 1455 comparison
2026-08-30Entity screening vs individual screening how screening businesses differs 1454 comparison
2026-08-26Sectoral sanctions vs comprehensive sanctions whats the difference 1449 comparison
2026-08-03Ofac vs fincen whats the difference between the two us treasury bureaus 1442 comparison
2026-05-19Fraud detection vs aml transaction monitoring key differences and how they work together 1366 comparison
2026-05-14Ofac general license vs specific license when you need each 1360 comparison

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page sanctionscanner.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read October 5, 2026.

Names read as Sanction Scanner

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Sanction Scanner; a claim can dispute any of them.

Sanction Scanner (now part of Complead) 2

Follow Sanction Scanner

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

Sanction Scanner is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: AI-powered AML compliance platform
sanctionscanner.com
For: financial institutions, fintechs, and regulated businesses
sanctionscanner.com
Free plan or trial: free, no login sanctionscanner.com
Certifications: ISO 27001ISO 9001GDPR Compliant
Hosting: Powered by Azure
Customers named: UnityAteshgah LifeTom BankLuxaviationAirHelpMoldcellWestern Union
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, integrations

What Sanction Scanner's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: sanctionscanner.com, sanctionscanner.com/case-studies, sanctionscanner.com/partners. A claimed page can correct any of them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Sanction Scanner's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Sanction Scanner, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Sanction Scanner by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Sanction Scanner is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name Sanction Scanner, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.

Badges

Wins only: a badge exists where Sanction Scanner is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.

ShowHide

Sanction Scanner is among the products AI models recommend first in AML and transaction monitoring this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.

Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges

Show the code

<a href="https://finance-ai-index.com/tax/aml-and-transaction-monitoring/"><img src="https://finance-ai-index.com/badges/2026-10/sanction-scanner--aml-and-transaction-monitoring-wide.svg" alt="Among AI models' top three in AML and transaction monitoring, October 2026 Edition, Finance AI Recommendation Index" width="320" height="104"></a>

Copy the code as it is. The link is part of the badge: it points at the AML and transaction monitoring standing, where the claim can be checked.

Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides

Show the code

<a href="https://finance-ai-index.com/tax/aml-and-transaction-monitoring/"><img src="https://finance-ai-index.com/badges/2026-10/sanction-scanner--aml-and-transaction-monitoring-square.svg" alt="Among AI models' top three in AML and transaction monitoring, October 2026 Edition, Finance AI Recommendation Index" width="240" height="240"></a>

Copy the code as it is. The link is part of the badge: it points at the AML and transaction monitoring standing, where the claim can be checked.

Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer

Show the code

<a href="https://finance-ai-index.com/tax/aml-and-transaction-monitoring/"><img src="https://finance-ai-index.com/badges/2026-10/sanction-scanner--aml-and-transaction-monitoring-compact.svg" alt="Among AI models' top three in AML and transaction monitoring, October 2026 Edition, Finance AI Recommendation Index" width="200" height="56"></a>

Copy the code as it is. The link is part of the badge: it points at the AML and transaction monitoring standing, where the claim can be checked.

Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.