Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management Reviews

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.

During the use of the Fraud Monitoring feature, we have to utilize the features to identify issues, such as the SAR report and counterterrorism financing. We check if there is any counterterrorism financing and implement measures on money laundering, specifically if there is any import-export of money related to terrorism.

I have been working with the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management solution for monitoring transactions and banking tools. I am using the tool to check the banking transactions and determine if there are any spikes in transactions. Based on that, we have to fill the SAR report and check the transaction report on the tool.

Regarding the Cross-Channel Fraud Monitoring feature, Fraud Monitoring in Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is related to Transaction Monitoring. Fraud Monitoring checks if there is any fraud in particular accounts, such as business accounts or individual accounts, so it is totally dependent on Transaction Monitoring where both are related.

I find that the most valuable feature in Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is that we can easily identify customer details without any issues, and it works smoothly. If I am trying to find customer transactions, I can easily find them without any issues, and in the last few years, I have not encountered any errors on the tool.

Identity verification is about customer identification, including all customer details and transactions, and these are the things we use for business purposes to check customer partnerships and needs.

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.

I have more than four years of experience working with Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management, and currently, I am working in HCL Tech.

Sometimes there are performance issues with Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management, especially when many users are online, as it can lead to downtime.

I would rate Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management a seven out of ten as a product because when user volume is high, the tool can go down.

I have experience with other solutions such as World-Check and Salesforce aside from Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management.

Before using the Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management tool, we put the details of customers such as transactions and then check those details as a basis for filling SAR reports to submit to the AML team.

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management and World-Check are different since World-Check helps in identifying the regions of customers, such as red flag areas Somalia, while Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management focuses on transaction analysis.

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 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.

Sometimes there are performance issues, especially when many users are online, as it can lead to downtime. When user volume is high, the tool can go down.

I do not have time to discuss other products such as Salesforce or ShareWorks.

Our company uses the solution to monitor transactions that come into our system for any fraud. 

We have ten analysts who work on closing the alerts in cases where there are transactions. 

We have not yet implemented the latest enterprise UI features so are not yet using the entire suite of the latest version. We are aware that the solution offers two versions on the cloud but haven't moved to them yet. 

The solution is highly intelligent and effective for detecting fraud in transactions. This is the solution's best feature. 

Multiple transactions are processed in a logical amount of time that is fast.

There are various settings to improve performance. 

You can customize the solution and implement things over the top of the fraud features. 

The solution is easier to set up, configure, and use than other products. 

The solution needs to mitigate and provide an update for one listener process that keeps failing. For a particular platform list or rule, the solution fails after crossing 500 transactions.

We were not sure if this failure is due to how we implemented the solution in our systems or if it is a generic issue in the solution itself.  We checked with the vendor but there was no solution for it. 

We came up with another way of doing additional, double monitoring. 

I have been using the solution for one year. 

We have not faced any performance issues since implementation. We have plenty of Norwegian transactions and a large dataset with no stability problems. 

The solution is quite scalable. We can fit any kind of configurations or customizations in it and they are compatible with multiple versions. 

The solution offers peer support that is really good and assists with any issues. We get very timely responses from them. 

We implemented the solution in-house with assistance from the vendor whenever we got stuck. Installation of the entire solution took two to three months.  

During the predeposition phase, we gained an understanding of the database version required and whether it was supported by Oracle and 12G. Then, we set up Tomcat as a subsidiary of the ISM solution. 

The solution sits on the AIS and RCM components. On top of that, there are suites like Fraud that come into play. Since our AIS and RCM were already in place, we just had to make sure the ISM version to be implemented was compatible with the existing AIS, RCM, and GY versions. The AI does the entire detection so the entire code and logic happens inside the solution. 

Then, we configured the INI files which have server details and port numbers for hosting. We deployed with normal scripts and ran test cases that included some transactions. We initially fed the transactions to the system based on fixed rules and out-of-the-box fraud tools. Finally, we created a few rules ourselves and went live. 

A small team initially handled the project. One manager mostly overlooked the plan of releases and the entire installation of the ISM. Two developers worked on implementation. The team grew at later stages. 

Two developers are owners of the application and handle all ongoing maintenance. They handle concerns, issues, maintenance, and updates. We work with peer support on any items that go beyond our understanding or knowledge of the solution. 

For the last few years, the solution has been known as the best compliance tool. 

If you are using another product that is causing huge performance issues, then you can happily shift to the solution. It is so much better and simpler set up, configure, and use than others. 

For issues, you will receive timely support. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We used the tool for the detection of anti-money laundering trade activities. There were four models where each business trade model handled a different aspect. Sufficient activity monitoring is a model that monitors the activity of each bank’s customer. This model tracks activities and sends them to White List Filtering. There is also Customer Due Diligence which is more or less a KYC that takes notes on the details and demography of the customer. We cannot monitor the activities of the customer without Actimize.

As an end user, we used the tool to track fraudulent activities which are part of the official activity monitoring model. There are some thresholds to this model. For instance, if a customer who hasn’t done a deposit over two months comes in with a deposit in a span of 72 hours, then it is considered suspicious activity. The solution flags the customer for inquiries and investigations.

The solution has improved the productivity of financial institutions. The number of fraudulent activities within the banking system has reduced since the system helps them track suspicious activities. After the deployment and installation, another phase of deployment was required to get access to the benefits.

There is a dashboard called Risk Case Management which helps you access trade business models. This dashboard helps with the authentication of the end user. There are about three to four different levels that are not from a particular department or unit. There are a lot of notifications and approvals to be made for a user to have access to the system. It is one of the things that gives credibility to the tool.

The tool helped my clients track some fraudulent activities which couldn’t have been possible without the solution. Once the solution is deployed, the client’s system needs to be upgraded and overhauled to reflect the new system. The end users can see the benefits of it. The integration of the solution increases our customers’ client base since more customers from other banks have decided to join the client bank due to the level of security.

The systems are always open to upgrades and improvements. There are always new updates. I know some other versions that will come up. The one that has been deployed is the fifth of its kind and when we were running the test during the deployment, we encountered some technical issues. When we tried to refer to other countries where the solution was deployed, we realized that we had run the older version there.

This particular version needs an improvement in the Customer Due Diligence model. There are two different modes on which the solution runs which include the batch mode and the real-time mode. Initially, the solution was running in batch mode. The real-time mode got introduced as a result of advancements in mobile technology where customers needed to access the system using their mobile devices. Real-time mode, which is the opposite of batch mode, runs the system in real time. On the other hand, batch mode runs at a specific period where you go and check what the result is.

Real-time mode runs 24/7 and you can see the information updated on the database whenever you check it. It is one of the new features that this particular version came out with.

I was part of the project that implemented the solution and the project lasted for about 18 months. I was an end-user.

The hardware always has issues. When you deploy on the cloud, you may not have the full ability to do the things that you want to do. On the other hand, when you deploy on-prem, you need to get the hardware components.

The solution is quite flexible and scalable. We have done most of the deployments remotely. Therefore, you can do the deployment from anywhere as long as you have access to good cloud and on-prem servers. During our deployment, we reached a stage where we needed scalability. At the initial stage, where our infrastructure was provisioned, the PIN provisioning did not match our requirements. Within two hours, we scaled up to 60 Gigabytes and continued the work.

The tech support was part of our deployment team. We always contacted them whenever we encountered any issues while running the scripts. They resolved the issues immediately by looking at the log files. If they couldn’t resolve the issue in that manner, they would join us on the cloud and try to replicate the issue by running the script again. The tech support team would take it further from there and resolve it.

Positive

The tool is quite complex. The project team consisted of four different teams, one from India, two from South Africa, and my own team from Nigeria. Though I had coordinated the four teams, I had to involve the regional command manager too due to the proprietary nature of the solution since only the solution owners were aware of some of the aspects and models of the tool.

When it gets to the point of the implementation like new code, they run the script. The implementation is complex for new people who are looking to implement it. When I was done with the implementation, I was confident to do more since I understood the nitty-gritty aspects of the implementation process. The complexity of the deployment is relative to the experience or requirements of the client.

I implemented through a vendor team with high level of expertise. Since there are three teams based in different geographical locations, we could efficiently work remotely to have the project completed. 

I am not privy to the cost. The estimate that I provide won’t reflect the actual amount since there are a lot of middlemen and other parties involved. In Nigeria, the phase one deployment would cost 165,000,000 Nigerian Naira which includes CDD, RCM, WNS, etc. This cost is for the implementation alone and I am not sure about the other costs that come with scaling up.

I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. Though there are other anti-money laundering solutions available like the one by Oracle. NICE is a good solution for fraud detection and authentication. This is the reason the tool stands out. Most of the banks in Nigeria and even the ones outside the African continent focus on implementing customized solutions. The Central Bank of Nigeria has added all commercial banks to incorporate anti-money laundering solutions but they were not specific. Many banks consider implementing NICE because of its rugged nature. I would like to advise anyone who is looking to implement NICE to evaluate it. The solution might be expensive but it fits the purpose.

I worked on Anti-Money Laundering and also on Integrated Fraud Management. In AML, we get customer data from the database. We will be working on a customer's personal data, such as whether they are involved in any political activities, or if there are any negative scenarios associated with them such as violating traffic rules or involving any inaccurate activities. We will be screening their profile and depending on what kind of person they are, we will be creating alerts and moving them from one step to another step and creating rules using the Policy Manager, and giving scenarios in the workflow using the Platform Release. In IFM, we get transaction data no matter whether it is from the web or mobile, or direct from the bank. We will be checking their transaction data and if there are any invalid patterns, withdrawing money, exceeding the limit, or any suspicious activity happening in their account, we will generate alerts.

The most valuable feature is the designer, which allows us to connect to UI and build things directly, such as creating a platform with our synchronizing policy manager rules, without any additional requirements.

Sometimes when we move from one version to another, a few things don't work as expected. We upgraded our designer from 5.6 to 6.2 to ActOne, but I was unable to synchronize or save. I had to raise a request again and roll back to the old version.

When using the user interface, it can be helpful to have a step-by-step guide when adding UI elements or moving shapes, as this can sometimes cause issues.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The solution is stable.

Depending on our data centers, we can scale up as much as we can provide additional instances.

We need a separate license for each of the packages, such as the core package, self-development package, and customization package. Additionally, we need a separate license for using Designer. We must upgrade our license every 200 or 365 days.

I give the solution a ten out of ten. Unlike other technologies, Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is partially pre-built, making it easy to understand what needs to be done and how to complete the work. Furthermore, due to the pre-existing code, there is no need to start from scratch, providing a better understanding of the current situation and what needs to be implemented.

Our organization moved to Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management because the solution is an upgraded version and also it provides many benefits as we can easily activate rules. Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is very convenient and it provides easy access to everything.

When utilizing the solution for the first time, always start with a lower environment such as a development environment. Only use Dell and SIT, and do not go directly to production. The solution may have an impact on the bank and large transactions.

The product is very fast, and we use it for fraud detection. We are a merchant experience business and monitor transactions. We are the end user of the solution, and we monitor transactions we get from the Power Machine ATM website.

They created a new UI that is very user-friendly. For example, a business user can log in, create their rules, and see the system's rules. We can also use our plugin and build in Java and Python.

We can create our processes and rules. For example, if we want to create a new flow and an ATM limit is set at five thousand, we can make our own rules. It is easier to write the rules ourselves. Because of this, it is less time-consuming as you do not need to go to a developer.

The process and technology in the solution are very fast, and it is bug-free. We have not had any issues with bugs with this product.

Some aspects of the product are not achievable and require us to use other warehouses. For example, when a merchant is onboarded, and we want to block them from terminals or the merchant limit section, we have to create our plugin. We are unable to do that inside the product because of the limitations. If we want that capability developed in the product, it will cost a lot of money.

We have been using this product for the past five years, and our experience has been very good. We are using an updated version. It is not cloud-based. We purchased the license, and it is in our local system. We are planning to move to the cloud, but we are using an inbuilt server only.

It is very stable. They also update the solution based on what is occurring in the market, and they quickly adapt.

We can scale the solution if our demands or transactions increase with no issues. We have around 400 to 500 users, and they all have an analyst.

We have not escalated any specific issue to technical support, but the technical support is good. For example, if we want to create a ticket, they have a URL where you can log your ticket, provide a problem in the description and submit it. They get back to us within one to two business days and set up a call to resolve the issue.

We've used FCCM from Oracle in the past. We switched to Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management because FCCM did not have a good UI where users could write their own rules. So whenever we had requirements, we had to go through developers. FCCM was not robust.

The product team was involved in the deployment. They came to our office and installed all the applications. The basic requirement is having more than 3GB of RAM, or the Java version needs to be updated.

The deployment did not take a lot of time. Within six to eight hours, we could deploy all the products on all the servers.

The maintenance of the solution is easy, and within two to five years, we can still use the same product version. However, they release a new product version after more than ten years. The product size is around 1.2GB.

It is worth using the product because it is easy to maintain.

I do not have specific details about pricing and licensing. The costs depend on how many users there are. For example, the licensing will be lower if there are five users and more if there are more than 100 or 200 users. Licensing costs are high compared to other products in the market.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. I recommend this tool to any financial company that wants to keep track of compliance issues.

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is predominantly used by banks, and the main focus is to prevent fraud. It's a fraud defender tool.

I like the score generated on the Actimize platform for each customer transaction. Those are transactions per second, accommodating millions of transactions per second. That's the best feature of Actimize.

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.

I have been using Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management for the last ten years.

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is a stable product.

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is a scalable product. We have about 700 users in our organization. 

The initial setup is not straightforward. It requires a specific skill set, and not everyone can do an Actimize installation in their system. It takes at least 21 days to deploy this solution. There are three components, IS, RCM, and the database. It can take about a week for each.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give the initial setup a three.

Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management is an expensive product.

I would tell potential users that it's a good tool.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management a nine.

It's an integral part of our surveillance.

Specifically, I do futures surveillance across all products. I look at futures trades for in-house and customers across fixed income, equities, and FX. That's my specific use case, but my colleagues, who do product surveillance in fixed income, use a Global Actimize solution to also look at a specific products like OTC treasuries versus fixed income futures and other products. 

Our company is global. We have six direct market access sites in the world. The US is one, the UK is another and Hong Kong and Singapore are three and four. Then we have two more that are small DMA sites. There are people at each DMA site that use Actimize. In the US, it's about 20 people, which is comparable to Hong Kong, which covers Singapore; in the UK, it's probably 30. Then we have an offshore team in India, composed of about 20 people that touch Actimize. Finally, at the other DMA sites, just a handful, maybe five.

We're fully invested in this solution, but we also have three other surveillance systems at level one, and Actimize is not the future for my firm. There's another system called Trading Hub, which is popular in Europe — that's the way of the future for us, for better or worse. We don't have a demise date for Actimize yet. It's at least a couple of years out, but we're trying to migrate towards Trading Hub and internal solutions. As of today, and for next year, we'll be fully invested in Actimize — we rely on it.

In terms of management information (MI), it isn't push-button, and by that, I mean that all the MI we need for specific alerts or specific clients has to be extracted, sometimes tediously by individual alerts. Some Mi is more automated. Maybe we could code the extractions to be more complete, if money was unlimited, which it is not. 

In any case, we can track MI internally to see where potential problems or hotspots may be occurring. From a bank standpoint, it allows us to look at which clients or house traders might be problematic, and which rule-sets are running hot.

It's a very good case management system. We use that at level-one, so it's a first-pass review, and all our reviews have to be reviewed. It's a very good case manager for making comments and saving the comments and having an audit trail around the comments. 

Our regulators, which are government regulators, and our auditors at the bank want complete audit trails. They want to understand why an alert was closed or escalated and they want to be able to randomly pull alerts and make sure that we're doing what we promise we're doing. Actimize allows us to provide that evidence when we're asked.

We use a separate system for level-two escalations — those are deeper investigations. If I was designing a tool, I guess it would be able to track a case from level-one to level-two to the conclusion, so that we wouldn't have to use multiple instances of different software. A more holistic surveillance approach would be a step in the right direction.

In my experience, I've never seen any facility on Actimize to facilitate level two and conclusions. If they did go in that direction, it would allow firms like mine to drop yet another piece of software that we use to track level two and level three escalations.

I've been using this solution since January of 2018.

It's very stable. Most of the problems that occur in our world tend to be about data feeds or processes not running, but Actimize itself is pretty stable.

It's very scalable. We use it around the world for many different types of alerts and products. It's very scalable.

My experience with Nice technical support is that they are responsive. I would give them a rating of five out of ten — on a good day.

Neutral

I've used HP Autonomy/ It's functional in a more primal way.

At my previous company, the initial setup was a bit of a stumble for us; however, I think that was our fault — we didn't deploy enough resources to give it a smooth launch. We didn't have as many resources as I think we should have had in the IT department to make the transition more smoothly. When it was launched into production, it had a lot of bugs in it, which we had to spend three to six months working out so that it would become a more usable tool. 

By the time I joined my current company, it was fully functional. We still are improving the rule-sets within Actimize, but Actimize itself runs very smoothly.

At my previous company, a combination of an overseas team and a domestic team, including productive product project managers of roughly 12 to 15 people were responsible for getting it up and running. I'm not even counting the people who were trying to find bugs and clarify it, but those were the people directly involved in touching the back of the application.

Deployment took three to five months before it was usable — we had a bad launch.

It's constantly becoming more sophisticated. We may find that we need to change the coding in a ruleset. We have a JIRA process where we suggest improvements in rule sets and it's constantly under improvement. I would assume it's very much the same for other banks. We have to make our systems more sophisticated because financial crimes get more sophisticated.

Don't know.

I'm not involved in the licensing negotiations, but personally, I don't like the length of our vendor contracts because it kills our flexibility. I understand why they do it though. I know they're doing it for predictability and such, but from my perspective, it doesn't allow us to be as flexible. My bank and several other banks are very large and they don't value flexibility. They value consistency more than flexibility. So I think it was a choice based on the size of the bank and the size of the contract. I don't know what the numerical value of the contract is.

We have a support contract. When we make changes, there are additional charges for making new changes or additions to our standard contract. I also don't know the value of those, but I have heard conversations on conference calls that there's going to be a cost involved with Actimize for making changes beyond a certain point. So, we have a basic support contract, and beyond that, we have to pay for additional changes.

We opted to choose Trading Hub. I think there's a company called Smarsh that we spoke with and there was a third company whose name I don't recall. These are multi-year contracts with these vendors. For this reason, we take our time and choose very slowly and deliberately because when we make changes, it affects our whole global operations. So it has effects a lot of downstream resources.

In our experience, when these products are launched, they're highly supported by the vendor, in this case, Nice. As they get more mature, the vendor wants to develop new solutions and charge more money, and the new solutions are more sophisticated and do more things and have more buttons and such, but they start to slow down and stop supporting their older products. I would say — Actimize is not being moved forward by Nice. We have to move towards a new platform. I guess we want some diversification. We use a lot of Nice products for coms and voice recordings and I think maybe there was just a sense that we're over-relying on one single company. Those are the main reasons why we are switching solutions in the near future.

Actimize is built for surveillance that is more the standard of excellence between 2010 to maybe 2017. It tends to be threshold rule-based and the new threshold, the new software, and the new vendor applications tend to be more statistically based or artificial intelligence/ machine learning-based. That's the future, the current state for some of our competitors, in the future for the rest of our competitors and ourselves is to move towards smarter alerts that look at transactions without fixed thresholds and look at things in the context of what else is coming through our pipes — Nice Actimize is just not there.

From our experience, when these products are launched, they're highly supported by the vendor, in this case, Nice. But as they get more mature, the vendor wants to develop new solutions and charge more money, and the new solutions are more sophisticated and do more things and have more buttons and such, but they start to slow down and stop supporting their older products. I would say — Actimize is not being moved forward by Nice. We have to move towards a new platform because we want some diversification. We use a lot of Nice products for coms and voice recordings. I think maybe there was just a sense that we're over-relying on one single company. That's the main reason why we are going to switch solutions in the near future.

My advice for anyone looking to implement this solution: I suggest that they look elsewhere. There is a lot of new innovation coming from other firms.

There's no single big lesson to be learned. It's a great starting point for small to medium-sized banks. It's very comprehensive and scalable, but when you get to more sophisticated operations, I don't think it's very forward-looking — I don't think it's a great solution.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution rating of seven.

It's very reliable but it's dated, it's not something that I would want to start deploying today unless the size of my operation dictated that I used this solution.

We use the solution as an anti-money laundering application to monitor financial crimes.

The solution's most valuable feature is watchlist.

The solution's user interface could be better. We struggled to migrate the server to the newer version of Windows. It took a lot of work going through onboard users and carrying out training before they could seamlessly use the platform on the new Microsoft Edge browser.

It is a pretty stable platform. I rate its stability a nine.

We have 700 solution users in our organization. I rate its scalability an eight.

The solution's technical support team is reachable and helpful.

The solution's initial setup process is complex. But it becomes easier once you have a dedicated system and essential training. The process involves deploying the solution in both production and DR environments. Later, you can add the required features to it.

The solution is reasonable for enterprise customers.

I rate the solution as a ten. It works well for its use cases. It is stable and easy to scale as well.

Right now, we are using Nice Actimize for our financial transactions. I have worked on multiple solutions to enrich the latest one that I'm working on. We have our payment systems and our normal transaction monitoring systems, detecting fraud cases. Based on that, they create alerts. Those alerts are ingested into Actimize. We have our case management system in which our analysts are shown the alerts with the respective data and with all the related alert details of the customers, and based on that they will be able to decide whether it is a potential fraud transaction or it is a false positive case.

Then the analyst will decide based on the rules whether it's a fraud happening or it's a valid transaction. This is what we are doing right now. But prior to that, we also used Nice Actimize for the case management system in which you have the rules, the responsibilities, and the users. Meaning, if I'm an analyst, I will have certain access rights so I can see something. If I have a manager on top of me, he can see something more on the same alert. He can see something else. If he's a manager on a group level, maybe for America, he can see alerts from North America as well as South America. We have these units and based on that, the rules are defined and you will have a UI that will display anything for you. There was an HR case where there was an incident raised against an employee. A manual case is created which will go through all the flows for check and go to the employee. Then the HR and the employee will have a discussion. All the details will be stored in that entity that is the alert. Then based on that, there will be other steps.

If it is a case in which there is sexual harassment or something, even if the police are involved, it will be stored. The details on the outcomes will be stored there, and then they will choose what to do with that case. Whether they want to do a formal complaint against that employee, or they want to terminate him, or is it a false case that was registered against him or something like that. This is one application besides the transactions. Actimize can be used in all these ways, but mostly the purpose of Actimize was anti-money laundering and suspicious activity, on the transaction and financial side of things.

They have certain rules. For example, if I am using a credit card and my usual behavior for normal transactions is 100 Pounds to 500 Pounds in a week, but suddenly I make a transaction of more than 5,000 Pounds. It is possibly a suspicious activity indicating that somebody is trying to do something. Now somebody needs to decide whether this is actually suspicious. If I consider my case, there was an instance when I did a big transaction and I got a phone call from my credit card saying that "Is that you who did this transaction?" So somewhere, they might also be using a similar kind of product and it helps the customers in preventing fraud from happening. This is an application of Nice.

The application itself is deployed on a server and it can be used throughout sites. So for us, it could be banks. Banks have their sites, the transactions come in, and that is just one place where it is installed and users can access it through the net. Now the latest thing that has come in, is that they also have cloud implementation. Everything will be there in the cloud. So any maintenance or upgrades will be done in one place. The clients who are using this application will not bear the costs separately. So any more data will be directly provided to them. Even the cloud interfaces are available now.

My company has a relationship with NICE Actimize as well as the client. NICE Actimize is the solution provider, the implementer, for our company, a bank. We have a business relationship with the bank as well as with NICE Actimize. NICE Actimize does not have a huge level of implementation so they do not deal directly with the banks. It is either us or the other vendors or service providers who actually implement and interact with actual users. They depend on us for any new upgrades or what the client wants. It is also beneficial since the companies are pricing for each thing. So maybe our company would get something at a cheaper rate because we are providing them with insights into what the customer actually wants and what their needs will be in the future.

With the number of transactions that are happening, everyone has a card and all of us do some transactions, so the volume of transactions and suspicious transactions is huge. In order to go through all the transactions, you need to have a lot of analysts and a lot of manpower, and the time to decide whether it is a fraud or not a fraud is huge. By using this product, Actimize, you are able to reduce the number of analysts working on it and have all the data for the transaction, the customers, and other things involved, embedded on a single screen. 

One of the criteria which determines a fraud is the country of origin of the transaction. There are red countries or blacklist countries, and certain things like that. For example, Afghanistan would be a country wherein if a person makes a transaction of more than 10,000 USD, it is considered that it could be a potential terrorist funding or some related activity. These kinds of things you can come to know. For example, there was a feature showing where the transaction was made or the card was swiped. You would also get that on a map - there will be a small link there. If an analyst wants to see where the actual transaction was done, he can also get that information right on that particular page. So all the details are in one place which makes it easier for an analyst to decide whether it is fraud or not.

Nice Actimize's most valuable feature would be its rule engine. The core of the application is that when transactions come in, there will be a set of business users, for example, a bank, who decides what constitutes fraud. Once they decide the criteria, all the transactions check against these filters on a real-time basis. If they find something suspicious, an alert will be created and the normal life cycle of the alert is opened and then goes to the analysis and all those steps will start. 

Apart from that feature, one more thing that is good about this product is that it is not specific to a particular database. If you have an Excel sheet, you can always import that and create alerts from that. You can always connect the to Hadoop system. They have given those open-ended entities where you can click on them. It's like a plugin. You just create a small plugin and it will be able to search for data from any of the sources that are available. It is easy to use. The UI is pretty good, so it helps the analyst. Lastly, robotics have come in. When there are a lot of alerts being generated, most of them follow certain patterns. So if we write a rule that these kinds of alerts should be directly closed or something like that, then even that can be done. Machine learning has now entered into the product. I haven't used it, but I know it is there now. People are using it.

In terms of what could be improved, one of the problems that our clients generally talk about is the price of the product when they have to purchase the product and the licenses for it. Those are on the higher side, in which case they would go ahead developing the built-in solution. Otherwise, the product is good compared to Actimize's competitors' products.

They have provided a feature wherein you can develop your own goals and targets along with it. There are some applications that will restrict you from doing something. But this application always provides you a plugin. You develop a plugin, you configure something and you can add any data. You can introduce any source. You can write to any file. You can then read reports, whether it is a PDF or something, or you can directly interact with a third party, such as a government organization wherein there is a feature like RFI, a request for information.

For example, let's consider there is a federal investigation going on and they need to have a response from a federal team. They will send out the RFI request. Once the federal team responds back on that, the response will automatically trigger an action once it is received. There are a lot of automated things and they haven't restricted anything. Even if there is a little drawback or a shortcoming, you can always create a Java code to use and just patch something in there. So in that sense, I would say that it is an open-ended product, it's not a closed environment.

I haven't had the chance to work on robotics, so I can not comment on that part. But it looks like that is something that they have developed recently. The other issue is that if you want to learn about the application itself, the training is not available as an open-source. It is restricted and you have to pay for it and get a formal certification, and only then you would be able to implement something with that. Even if you try to Google it, you won't be able to find the actual code or how to configure it and all that information.

I have been using Nice Actimize for around four years.

Nice Actimize is a stable product. The product, is interacting with multiple systems. We had a screen wherein we were connecting to the Hadoop environment because the number of transactions was very huge. So we could not have it in our Oracle at the same time. They were present in Hadoop and the user would connect. There was a dashboard kind of a thing in which there were internal queries to fetch data from Hadoop and display to the users.

But sometimes, due to connectivity between all the environments and the Hadoop environment itself, we would face difficulties. Basically, it is the environment that may bring down the performance. But if the environment is proper and I know the volume that I am going to handle, I don't think this application goes down.

There are updates available for Actimize. If there is an upgrade, you have to purchase a license for it depending on the agreement that you have with Actimize. If you have an agreement wherein there would be a fee for the upgrade, they will give a patch and you just run it once. There will be a fee that will be there with the patch, and they will just give us the steps that we need to do, and they will just be helping us out.

In terms of scalability, around 100 or 200 users is a normal thing for Actimize. If there are thousands of users that are going to be added, then obviously there needs to be some abbreviation done on the available resources. For example, the environment is a smaller environment, which can handle only a certain number of requests. If that is the case, then obviously Actimize won't be able to support all those.

When I say, "Won't be able to support" they would internally add load balancers and all those things would be implemented. If the docket is not able to handle a request, you will see a lag in the opening of a page or a request. But it is seldom that the application is unavailable as a whole. So the worst case would be if there is a slowness in the application. Sometimes we need to do a restart or something in the lower environments, but we do not see that in production. Because in production, all the environments are kept up to date and there are other processes checking the number of alerts and everything. So there are diagnostic functions going on. So any spike anywhere would be easily detected and a proper notification would be sent to the user.

I am speaking as a developer who would be developing stuff in Actimize. There will be other people who would be the final users of Actimize. There are approximately 200 developers throughout my organization who are developing stuff for different vendors. In terms of the users that are actually using it, it could really be in the thousands because there are big banks and financial institutions which use this product and they have their own users. So some of them would be analysts, most of them would-be managers. And based on that, they function. I could just give an approximate figure here.

This product is being used in multiple payment gateways. So even in the investment banking sector, you have Actimize being used. Basically, wherever payments and transactions are concerned, this application is used, including big banks, and the volume at which they are utilizing it would be quite huge. Because this application isn't cheap, it is quite expensive, they will only put in that kind of money if the volumes are huge. So instead of spending on people, they are spending on a product, which makes life easier because fewer people can manage it.

We had one instance where we had to call NICE Actimize. There was an existing issue with their product which they were working on. At that time, they said that this would be coming in the next release. One of the features or one of the PDFs were not working. It was not a showstopper, but it was a small issue in which we had a call with them. We told them we're facing an issue and about everything we had tried, and technically they were able to help us. They also asked us to try multiple things. After that, once it was still not working, then they said that, "Let us come out with a permanent fix that we should do for the next release, and you will get a free upgrade." I would rate the technical support an eight out of 10.

Initially, we used normal Java programs in which we had to develop everything from scratch. But using Nice Actimize gave us the freedom to just configure and use it. The focus is mainly not on developing, but on implementation when we use this product. Prior to this, we did not work on any tools or assets.

Unfortunately, I do not have any experience working on similar solutions. Like I mentioned, there are two other solutions that do provide a similar thing. One is Mantas and the other one is Morale. For our current client, these two systems are used to detect fraud transactions, but Actimize is used to display and for the case management. The case management part in Actimize is better than the competitive solutions.

As I mentioned earlier, this product is open-ended so you can never say "it is not possible" in Actimize. Maybe they don't give it as a solution, but you can always develop that on your end and plug it in, whereas this is not possible with other solutions. This is what I have heard. We were picking solutions for a prospective client who was interested in going into this area, and we had to give a description of all the solutions available for them to decide which one to go for. I was a part of Actimize, so I just heard the other parts as well. This was what I read.

The initial setup is a running of files. There are the shell scripts and everything runs with a normal installation. There will be a team from Actimize itself. They will help us out installing the product and if there are problems, they would give the support. Once the installation is done or there are upgrades, you just click execute this file and it will do the rest all by itself.

It's pretty straightforward.

The deployment and installation of the product would take around a week. A week in the sense that it will be around a couple of days, and then there will be certain checks done, whether everything is working fine or not. Once the environment is ready there can be different solutions that you can deploy or create.

Once the Actimize environment is there you can create your own. Whether you want to do a case monitoring on a transaction, or you want to do something related to HR or any other thing that is configured. That is something that you develop. Basically, it is like your Java. So you have the Java environment installed, then you can do anything on that.

Installation of Java would take a maximum of an hour or so. Setting up your parts and everything. Similarly for this, it will have to take day or two for the Actimize team to analyze whether everything has been set up properly. They will probably give a week of time wherein they would say that the environment is ready for you to use. In case of any issues, like the environment is going down or there are some upgrade that was not present, they will be responsible.

I'm actually not sure about this as this would be done on a client-to-company basis. Most probably it is on a yearly basis or a bi-yearly basis. Or it could also be greater than that because if a big bank is going to put money into some solution, they won't be doing it for a shorter period. They would like to carry it on for a longer period. I do not have an exact idea of this.

What Actimize has done with the standard license is to give the amount of flexibility you can have and the type of solution you want and has customized the pricing based on that. If you only want an AML solution, you will be charged separately. If you only want an activity monitoring solution, you will be charged separately. Or if you want a custom solution, you will be charged separately. If you want a custom solution as well as something you want to develop and use as plugins, then it will have different pricing altogether. So they have divided the pricing based on that.

I would definitely recommend this solution to other users. From a developer perspective, it's easy for me to implement any new change. If we consider the cases of the requests or what we want as a financial institution, they change rapidly. The markets change and the rules change, regulations change. Implementation must be quick. It is easier to optimize. This is from a developer's perspective. From a user's perspective, you can actually make a change in your application on the fly, which will make you better than your competitor banks or financial institutions, which will affect your customers' profits because it is a service you are giving to a client, which in turn gives their services to the customer.

If you are giving our services to a bank, they would be customers for the bank, which would benefit them. If the bank is going to meet the changes quickly, if there is a new method of payment or something that can be included faster from a bank's perspective, that is a consideration. So definitely on the bank side, as well as the development side, I would recommend this to people who are considering this solution.

As a developer, we used to develop everything from scratch and stayed more time in a building, with the same stuff over and over again. But after using this product, rather than recreating the same thing, or reinventing the wheel, you can always make use of the existing things. I see something more quickly. You can implement things more quickly rather than spending your effort on things that don't matter at the end of the day.

I now work with a newer version of this tool. The newer version has a better UI and other functionalities. The underline technology and databases have improved since we first started to use the tool. It is now faster than earlier versions and they have introduced robotics as well.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Nice Actimize Fraud & Authentication Management a nine. Just keeping one point for the scope of improvement.

I use it for financial claims monitoring. I am using its previous version.

The core engine seems to be better than the rest for pattern recognition. It is able to process large amounts of data.

It has become too complex for its own good with a lot of versions. They are trying to do too much. Instead of keeping it sort of traditional and keeping the core search engine as a standalone and having analytical bolt-ons, they have decided to jam it all into the same product, which made the product overly complex and difficult to implement.

Their professional services group could certainly use a boost. Their QA process is getting better, but it is still not where it should be. Their release QA crew could certainly use improvement.

I have been using this solution for about six years.

Its scalability is good. They've got that covered.

Our clients are large businesses. It is used by analysts, and roughly, throughout the group, there are 3,000 to 4,000 users.

I would rate them a seven out of 10. They need to improve on the response time. The level two support is good. It is the level one support that needs a little bit of coaching. This is the struggle that pretty much every software development firm goes through.

Neutral

It is quite complex. It is not straightforward.

I would go for it. With all the negatives, it is still the best in the market.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.