WhatsApp and Telegram +44 7563 115980
[email protected]
A UK screening platform founded by former GCHQ technologists, covering sanctions, PEPs, watchlists and adverse media with entity profiles that keep earlier decisions.
Ripjar scores 2.4 out of 5 (48 out of 100) in the Buckingham Intelligence Sanctions and Adverse Media Screening Index 2026 and ranks 11 of 12. It is strongest for large banks wanting entity-based screening across many languages, with 5 out of 5 for matching and alert handling. Not published or not stated on the pages read: coverage and pricing.
Scores from the Sanctions and Adverse Media Screening Index 2026.
| Segment | Score out of 100 | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| For payment and e-money firms | 47 | 11 of 12 |
| For banks and lenders | 55 | 9 of 12 |
| For crypto firms | 42 | 11 of 12 |
The score out of 5 is the overall score out of 100 divided by 20. Leader goes to the top three overall, Best for to the first in each segment, and Top rated for to a score of 5 out of 5 on a criterion. Awards cannot be bought.
Where it scores best, and where to check closely, as shown in each ranking.
Large banks wanting entity-based screening across many languages.
What Ripjar publishes on its own pages, read on 26 October 2026.
A UK screening platform founded by former GCHQ technologists, covering sanctions, PEPs, watchlists and adverse media with entity profiles that keep earlier decisions. It publishes the widest language coverage in this edition and an automated alert review tool. It uses the client's chosen list data and publishes no prices, API documentation, certifications or named clients.
| Fact | What the provider publishes |
|---|---|
| Coverage | "Unifies sanctions, PEPs, watchlists and adverse media"; each screened entity "maintains a continuously updated profile". Payment screening not published. |
| Pricing | Not published on the pages read. |
| Data | "Data-agnostic by design" across OFAC, EU, UK, AUSTRAC and other lists; sanctions "Updates delivered at the speed of up to every four hours depending on data source"; adverse media from "6 billion+ articles in 22+ languages", updated "twice daily". |
| Matching | Name matching "across 400+ languages, 20+ scripts and over 1 million+ name variants"; configurable PEP categories and list selection; Screening Assistant "auto-closes low-risk items with a full audit trail". |
| Integration | "Cloud-based deployments are typically faster than on-premises installations"; no API documentation, batch tool or trial on the pages read. |
| Security and clients | No certification on the pages read. "Trusted by 400+ organisations globally" and "Tier 1 banks"; none named. |
| Date read | 26 October 2026 |
A fact that is not published is scored as not offered or, for a fee, as if it were high. It is never estimated.
Facts read on 26 October 2026 from: ripjar.com, ripjar.com/screening, ripjar.com/watchlist-screening.
Each score with the evidence behind it.
Each criterion is scored 0 to 5 against the best published offer in the Sanctions and Adverse Media Screening Index. 0 means not offered or not published. How it is scored
The other providers in the same ranking, ordered by score.
| Provider | Score out of 5 | Rank | Strongest for |
|---|---|---|---|
| ComplyAdvantage | 4.5 | 1 of 12 | Payment and e-money firms wanting full coverage with a published monthly price table |
| dilisense | 4.0 | 2 of 12 | Smaller payment and crypto firms wanting low published per-check prices |
| Castellum.AI | 3.8 | 3 of 12 | US banks and fintechs wanting very fresh data and automated alert review |
| sanctions.io | 3.8 | 4 of 12 | Fintechs and crypto firms wanting hourly list updates and quick API set-up |
| LSEG World-Check | 3.4 | 5 of 12 | Banks and larger firms wanting an established risk database with a free trial |
| OpenSanctions | 3.1 | 6 of 12 | Crypto and payment firms wanting the clearest published per-query prices and traceable sources |
| Facctum | 2.9 | 7 of 12 | Banks and payment firms wanting fast payment screening and a choice of hosting region |
| Dow Jones Risk & Compliance | 2.8 | 8 of 12 | Banks and investment firms needing ownership data on sanctioned parties |
| Napier AI | 2.7 | 9 of 12 | Banks wanting screening and monitoring on one platform with strong security credentials |
| Sanction Scanner | 2.6 | 10 of 12 | Smaller firms wanting one plan for screening, adverse media and daily monitoring |
| Moody's Grid | 1.6 | 12 of 12 | Banks wanting a broad risk database to feed their own screening systems |
Side by side on every criterion, fact and award.
Head-to-head comparisons cover pairs within the top five of each ranking. Ripjar is compared with its alternatives in the table above.
Tell us what you need and where you operate.