Every category where a model named SAS AML 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	0%	107 of 108	83%	6	under 10 labels · led by ComplyAdvantage at 33%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for SAS AML 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 SAS AML across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

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

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

Direct2 labelsNone

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative5 labelsNone

Budget-constrained1 labelNone

Scale-constrained1 labelNone

Negative13 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative25 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 0 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.

“Enterprise banks often choose NICE Actimize, SAS AML, or Oracle FCCM for advanced customization.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · AML monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

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.

“critiquing legacy vendors like NICE Actimize, SAS AML, Oracle Mantas, and FICO TONBELLER (Siron) for their shortcomings” Muse Glimmer 30B · AML monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

“Included in the same "legacy vendor" critique set, especially for less modern architecture and operational friction.” Perplexity Sonar · AML monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

“Similar critiques to Oracle Mantas and Actimize: Heavy consultant dependency” DeepSeek V4 Flash · AML monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

“notoriously difficult for smaller or mid-market organizations” Gemini 3.5 Flash · AML monitoring · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as SAS AML, over the 25 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and SAS AML was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

NICE Actimize20 of 255Not among the top eight

ComplyAdvantage14 of 250Not among the top eight

Oracle Mantas10 of 250Not among the top eight

Oracle Financial Crime and Compliance Management8 of 252Not among the top eight

Feedzai6 of 250Not among the top eight

Unit216 of 250Not among the top eight

FICO TONBELLER5 of 250Not among the top eight

LexisNexis Risk Solutions5 of 250Not among the top eight

Sumsub5 of 250Not among the top eight

Sanction Scanner4 of 252Not 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 SAS AML. 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 24 of the 25 answers that named SAS AML and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

bureau.id11

riskpublishing.com11

flagright.com10

fraud.net10

fraudio.com10

sphinxhq.com10

g2.com9

ondato.com9

amlwatcher.com7

complyadvantage.com6

No domain is on file for SAS AML, so its own site is not marked.

Pages cited

bureau.id/resources/blog/transaction-monitoring-software11

riskpublishing.com/best-anti-money-laundering-aml-software-compa11

flagright.com/post/best-aml-compliance-solutions-for-payment-processors10

sphinxhq.com/blog-posts/best-aml-software10

ondato.com/blog/best-aml-software9

amlwatcher.com/blog/aml-software-vendors6

fraudio.com/roundups/best-aml-transaction-monitoring-software6

guideflow.com/blog/aml-software6

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

Where SAS AML stands in Google search beside where it stands in the models' answers.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Searches for its name, Google: 110 a month (“sas aml”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 4 a month
Its own site: No site of its own on file, so no site figures

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 107 of 108 in AML monitoring

Segment leader

33%

ComplyAdvantage

First choices: 0 across its categories
Named in: 25 answers
Its own site cited: No site on file to match

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.

Follow SAS AML

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.

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 SAS AML'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 SAS AML, 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 SAS AML by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where SAS AML 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 SAS AML, 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.