Why SonarPulse
Until now, the market offered three bad options.
Each solves part of the problem and leaves you to build an operation around the gap.
Sold per record. Costs balloon with growth, and you still build the entire operation around the feed. A data layer is not a platform.
Modern and API-first, but a foreign multi-tenant cloud. Your customers' PII leaves the jurisdiction that supervises you, and pricing scales with volume.
Thorough on edge cases, but measured in days, costly per case, inconsistent between reviewers and impossible to run continuously.
Six reasons
What institutions actually buy.
Delivered as an in-country cloud service. Customer PII is hosted inside your own jurisdiction, never a foreign multi-tenant cloud. Private data centre or on-premises where mandated.
The whole lifecycle — onboard, screen, score, monitor, renew, report — rather than a raw watchlist you must build an operation around.
Official regulator lists, open and alternative datasets, court and enforcement records, live media and a localised in-country PEP database. No single premium-vendor lock-in.
A per-tenant rules engine weights every category into a rating with a transparent, tunable, auditable breakdown. Not a black box.
True KYB: corporate, trust, foundation, partnership and vessel ownership trees, with UBO and shareholder roles carried through to monitoring.
A flexible pricing model you can track, rather than per-record metering that punishes growth.
Where we differ
Most platforms are KYC-first extending into monitoring, or monitoring-first extending into KYC.
| Industry pain point | With SonarPulse |
|---|---|
| Manual, slow onboarding | AI-driven due diligence with real-time dashboards, across six entity types |
| Fragmented screening tools | Sanctions, PEP and adverse media unified across global and local data in one pass |
| Data and document integrity | Anti-tampering controls, cross-verification at source, and a hash-chain audit log |
| Scores that cannot be explained | Module-level decomposition with configurable weighting, versioned and rollback-capable |
| Broken handover between KYC and monitoring | One customer record spanning onboarding through to filing |
| Regulatory and reputational risk | Risk detection aligned to AML/CFT requirements across five supervisory regimes |
Where the market is thin
Four gaps the category still treats as roadmap.
Supervisors want explainability, not only alert reduction. UAE guidance requires AI models affecting AML, fraud or credit decisions to be inventoried, documented, validated and explainable.
Outcomes-based evaluation creates demand for auditor-ready evidence packs. A tamper-evident audit chain answers that directly.
Priced out by Tier 1 vendors, underserved by generic tooling, and carrying identical legal obligations regardless of headcount.
Real depth on both the customer side and the transaction side remains uncommon. One record spanning onboarding through to filing is the whole architecture, not an integration.
Bring us your hardest customer file.
Engagement begins with a health check and a working session with your compliance team — then a demonstration against your own risk appetite.
Request a compliance health check