Try our new research platform with insights from 80,000+ expert users

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management vs SAS Fraud Management comparison

 

Comparison Buyer's Guide

Executive SummaryUpdated on Dec 12, 2024

Review summaries and opinions

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Categories and Ranking

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authe...
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
2nd
Average Rating
8.2
Reviews Sentiment
6.5
Number of Reviews
18
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
SAS Fraud Management
Ranking in Fraud Detection and Prevention
12th
Average Rating
8.0
Reviews Sentiment
6.9
Number of Reviews
2
Ranking in other categories
No ranking in other categories
 

Mindshare comparison

As of January 2026, in the Fraud Detection and Prevention category, the mindshare of Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is 4.0%, down from 6.0% compared to the previous year. The mindshare of SAS Fraud Management is 3.1%, down from 4.1% compared to the previous year. It is calculated based on PeerSpot user engagement data.
Fraud Detection and Prevention Market Share Distribution
ProductMarket Share (%)
Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management4.0%
SAS Fraud Management3.1%
Other92.9%
Fraud Detection and Prevention
 

Featured Reviews

RK
AML Compliance Analyst at HCLTech
Easy transaction monitoring but requires improvement in handling high user volumes
We can definitely improve the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management tool because I sometimes encounter issues while searching for particular customer transactions; it results in errors and I cannot easily find specific transactions. If there is improvement in those points, we can easily identify customer details and detect spikes in transactions to cover money laundering. Regarding specific features, I think AI should be implemented in the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management tool. AI should be integrated for better analysis and suggestions because nowadays, AI is very important for all organizations. If implemented, it can easily identify transaction details, reducing the need for extra manpower.
reviewer1562526 - PeerSpot reviewer
Head of Practice at a tech services company with 501-1,000 employees
Scalable and easy to use but could have better technical support
The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance has been very good so far. That said, from my perspective, has had some issues with stability and performance issues in that they have a lot of data and it has some indexing and mechanisms that work a bit slow.

Quotes from Members

We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
 

Pros

"The case management tool is user friendly."
"The alerts are the most valuable feature because we have different alerts. Different data is fed to Actimize. It alerts us if a transaction happened from a certain place."
"The solution loads big data efficiently and quickly."
"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."
"The most valuable feature is automation which makes our transaction capture 40 percent easier."
"I like the tracking methodology. Though it was implemented on-premises, the compliance is compatible with it. It will have certain modifications with RPM and APR. It has good exposure from a compliance point of view."
"Nice's most valuable feature would be its rule engine."
"The core engine seems to be better than the rest for pattern recognition. It is able to process large amounts of data."
"The security is also very good."
"The solution is easy to use."
 

Cons

"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."
"The patch section has room for improvement."
"Sometimes when we move from one version to another, a few things don't work as expected."
"Licensing costs are high compared to other products in the market."
"I would like for it to proactively give suggestions or hints before initiating the transaction. It could make use of the data that has already occurred, like machine learning. It should learn patterns from specific countries."
"It would be better if it integrated with other tools. Actimize uses many databases, and everything on Actimize has been deployed to the database. On the customer side, on the front end side, if they focus more on integrating with other applications, it can make the tool better. The reporting feature and dashboards could be better. In the next release, I would like them to incorporate a Tableau-type reporting structure within this tool."
"Processes don't function when front end is down."
"From the front end side, the UI is definitely user-friendly. It is highly compatible as long as the reading is at the coding point of view. But it can't provide certain high coding. When a person clicks on any kind of scenario or alert, I would like to have a metadata help menu."
"Occasionally, there are some mechanisms that can work a bit slow."
 

Pricing and Cost Advice

"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."
"We need a separate license for each of the packages, such as the core package, self-development package, and customization package."
"Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is an expensive product."
"It is reasonable for enterprise customers."
"If your company has the budget, I would absolutely recommend SAS."
report
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Fraud Detection and Prevention solutions are best for your needs.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.
 

Top Industries

By visitors reading reviews
Financial Services Firm
37%
Comms Service Provider
9%
Sports Company
6%
Retailer
5%
Financial Services Firm
22%
Comms Service Provider
21%
Computer Software Company
9%
Educational Organization
8%
 

Company Size

By reviewers
Large Enterprise
Midsize Enterprise
Small Business
By reviewers
Company SizeCount
Small Business4
Large Enterprise14
No data available
 

Questions from the Community

What is your primary use case for Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management?
I am working on Transaction Monitoring and Fraud Risk, and I have experience using the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management tool alongside World-Check and Salesforce for this purpose...
What needs improvement with Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management?
We can definitely improve the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management tool because I sometimes encounter issues while searching for particular customer transactions; it results in error...
What advice do you have for others considering Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management?
I have rated Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management a seven out of ten. AI should be integrated into the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management tool for better analysis an...
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
 

Also Known As

Actimize, NICE Actimize
No data available
 

Overview

 

Sample Customers

Associated Banc-Corp
Nets
Find out what your peers are saying about Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management vs. SAS Fraud Management and other solutions. Updated: December 2025.
881,082 professionals have used our research since 2012.