The record beneath your stack, not another decisioning tool.
Alloy decides on its own platform. FinQub is the single source of truth for fintech risk decisions: one record per customer that every vendor signal lands on, including the signals Alloy never sees. Keep Alloy, and put its decisions on a record you own across every vendor.
Different categories, partial overlap.
Alloy decides. FinQub records. They sit at different layers of the same stack.
Identity decisioning platform
Purpose-built for KYC, KYB, fraud, and credit decisioning. Deep library of identity data providers, mature policy engine, broad adoption across banks and fintechs.
Best for: teams whose primary need is identity and credit decisioning, with sophisticated routing and policy management.
The record beneath your vendors
One record per customer that every vendor signal lands on, across KYC, KYB, payments, banking, fraud, sanctions, and documents. Every decision, override, and policy version on the record, queryable and exportable when the examiner asks.
Best for: teams running multi-vendor stacks that need one record beneath every decision, so the call is made on the whole picture and stays defensible later.
FinQub vs Alloy
A decisioning platform vs the record that sits beneath it, side by side.
| Capability | FinQub | Alloy |
|---|---|---|
| One record per customer across every vendor | Every signal from every vendor lands on one Subject record. | Records its own decisions, inside its own platform. |
| Signals from tools Alloy doesn't cover | KYC, KYB, sanctions, fraud, banking, and payments on one record. | Its own identity and credit data library. |
| Decision made on the whole record | Your tools see every vendor signal before the call fires. | Decides on the signals inside Alloy. |
| Signed exam packet on one query | Signed PDF and JSON per customer, on demand. | Decision history available within the platform. |
| Point-in-time replay of any past decision | Reconstruct any decision as it stood. | Not in scope. |
| Override capture: who, why, on what authority | First-class on the record. | Captured within case and decision context. |
| Vendor-neutral history | Swap a vendor, keep the record and the audit history. | History is tied to the Alloy platform. |
| Continuous monitoring of non-escalated decisions | The 80 to 94% that never escalate stay on the record. | Monitoring within Alloy's decisioning scope. |
| Identity and credit decisioning depth | Through the identity and credit vendors you connect. | Core product. Mature identity and credit decisioning. |
| Market maturity | Design-partner stage. | Series C+, mature enterprise deployments. |
| Pricing model | Subscription. You keep your own vendor contracts. | Typically per-decision pricing; enterprise contracts. |
Comparison based on publicly documented capabilities of Alloy as of April 2026. We try to keep this accurate – let us know at hello@finqub.io if something is out of date.
When to pick which
Identity and credit decisioning is your whole use case
- • Your need is almost entirely KYC, KYB, fraud, and credit, with heavy identity-data depth.
- • You want a mature platform with a large customer base and established policy patterns.
- • You do not need a record that spans the vendors outside Alloy.
- • You are buying the decision, not the record beneath it.
You need one record beneath every vendor, not just identity
- • Your stack spans identity, payments, banking, fraud, and sanctions, and no single tool holds the whole picture.
- • You need every decision queryable and exportable as a signed exam packet when an examiner asks.
- • You want history that survives a vendor swap, and continuous monitoring of the decisions that never escalate.
- • You want to keep Alloy and put its decisions on a record you own.
Frequently asked questions
Related comparisons
Other vendors we're an alternative to
FinQub orchestrates across fintech's vendor categories. Compare us head-to-head with whichever single-purpose tool you're evaluating.
Stop stitching vendors by hand. Put every decision on one record.
Let's talk about what FinQub looks like on your stack. Which tools you run, where the gaps are, and how one record fills them.