# Sumsub vs Truthlocks: KYC and AML Workflows vs Signed Evidence > Compare Sumsub and Truthlocks: kYC and AML Workflows vs Signed Evidence. Strengths, limitations, practical scenarios and primary sources. By Truthlocks Editorial Published: 2026-10-28T13:30:57.081894Z Updated: 2026-10-28T13:30:57.081894Z Canonical page: https://www.truthlocks.com/blog/sumsub-vs-truthlocks **Publisher disclosure:** Truthlocks is the publisher and a product being compared. Researched and written with AI assistance; reviewed against the primary sources linked below on October 28, 2026. This is a company-authored architectural assessment, not an independent product test. KYC, AML screening and signed-record verification should not be collapsed into one product category. Sumsub addresses onboarding and risk checks about people or organizations. Truthlocks addresses signed evidence and verification, with risk interfaces that depend on their documented inputs. A buyer seeking Sumsub alternatives must first identify which checks and operational obligations cannot be removed. ## Sumsub's documented verification workflow [Sumsub's user-verification documentation](https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/user-verification) describes collecting identity evidence, applying configured checks and generating a result through its dashboard or integration interfaces. The described methods include identity documents, biometrics, data checks and screening. Its [AML configuration guide](https://docs.sumsub.com/docs/configure-aml-screening) identifies screening configuration and third-party data dependencies. These are workflow capabilities, not a guarantee that every customer automatically satisfies every legal obligation. The business must select appropriate checks, markets and escalation rules. Verify current coverage and contractual responsibilities with the provider and the advisers responsible for your program. ## Truthlocks' different evidence layer Truthlocks offers issuer-associated records, verification and signed action evidence. The [public engineering evidence](https://www.truthlocks.com/resources/evidence) supports a bounded technical evaluation, not a claim of comprehensive AML screening or a substitute for a regulated onboarding program. Its [risk-signal documentation](https://docs.truthlocks.com/guides/deepfake-detection) states that the deepfake endpoint processes supplied indicators or external scores. It does not independently inspect a referenced identity document or video. An application must not turn that integration surface into a marketing claim of native document or biometric verification. ## Compare the actual decision CriterionSumsubTruthlocksStarting inputApplicant evidence and configured screening dataSigned records, issuer context and supplied signalsMain questionDoes the applicant meet the configured onboarding/risk requirements?Does the evidence validate under the recipient's trust policy?Screening roleDocumented identity and AML workflow capabilitiesEquivalent screening coverage not established hereEvidence roleResults and review information from checksSigned assertions and record verificationPilot evidenceCoverage, matches, exceptions and case handlingIntegrity, issuer trust, status and replay handling ## Where Sumsub may be stronger For a business that needs configured identity checks and AML screening, Sumsub is more directly aligned with the requirement. A signature service cannot replace the collection and assessment of applicant evidence. Nor can it replace access to current screening information merely by preserving an old result. Evaluate false matches and inconclusive cases alongside confirmed matches. A name similarity may need review rather than automatic rejection. Define who resolves a case, what evidence they use and how their conclusion is audited. The quality of the operational process matters as much as an endpoint returning a score. ## Where Truthlocks is a better architectural fit Truthlocks can be evaluated when an institution needs to issue and check an evidence record across business systems after a decision. For instance, a compliance team may provide a scoped statement that a review occurred under a named policy, while retaining sensitive source material separately. Use the [verification workflow](https://www.truthlocks.com/product/verification) to test the integrity and issuer context of that statement. Do not word it as permanent immunity from risk. Screening data, customer circumstances and business permissions can change. A current acceptance decision may require fresh checks even if an older signed review remains historically valid. ## Example: a reviewed merchant with changing risk Imagine a payment business reviews a merchant and approves a limited account. The operations team needs evidence that the review was completed, but should not receive every identity document and screening detail. A signed decision record can reference the policy, review time and scope of the approval. Later, the merchant requests a new product or changes ownership. The earlier approval does not automatically cover that change. The business needs an updated assessment and a way to supersede or withdraw the prior operational permission. Keep the history without presenting it as current authorization. This hypothetical design does not assert a native Sumsub–Truthlocks connector or a compliant customer deployment. The institution remains responsible for its program and for testing the data exchange, callback authentication and account binding. ## Evidence freshness and integration risks Ask how screening data is refreshed, how notifications are delivered and how missed events are recovered. Test duplicate callbacks, delayed results, unavailable providers and manual-review outcomes. A successful network response is not the same as a completed identity or screening decision. For signed records, test altered fields, an unknown issuer, expired permissions and replay of an earlier acceptable result. Preserve the source system's evidence references and policy version. Avoid copying sensitive source records into public logs merely to make an audit trail easier to inspect. Before adoption, review data retention, access controls, geographic coverage and responsibility for investigating matches. This article does not provide legal advice or establish that either product alone makes an organization compliant. It also does not claim comparative pricing, accuracy or independent certification for Truthlocks. ## Decision and FAQ Evaluate Sumsub for configured KYC and AML-related workflows. Evaluate Truthlocks for verifiable signed evidence around institutional or application decisions. If the requirement includes both, preserve the distinction between performing the checks and proving the integrity of a record about those checks. ### Does a signed “KYC complete” record satisfy every requirement? No. The underlying checks, policy, jurisdiction and ongoing obligations still matter. ### Can Truthlocks replace a screening database? That capability is not established by the reviewed evidence. Supplied-signal processing is not equivalent to current screening coverage. ### Why retain an older signed decision? It can explain historical actions, while a separate current-status decision governs what is allowed now. [Explore the comparison collection](https://www.truthlocks.com/blog/comparisons) · [Explore Truthlocks for your workflow](https://www.truthlocks.com/get-started). Validate required capabilities in a scoped pilot before adopting either product.