[CONTENT]
$
USD
Total Economic Impact
Cost Savings And Business Benefits Enabled By Transaction Monitoring
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY Sumsub, JULY 2025
Total Economic Impact
A FORRESTER TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDY COMMISSIONED BY Sumsub, JULY 2025
Anti-money laundering (AML) remains one of the most critical areas for financial institutions in their quest to repel financial crime and maintain regulatory compliance. Organizations are investing in transaction monitoring AML solutions to proactively detect compliance gaps and adapt swiftly to evolving regulatory landscapes. These tools deliver real-time visibility into risk exposure and operational effectiveness, enabling faster, data-driven decisions that ensure regulatory alignment.
Sumsub is a full-cycle verification platform for identity verification, business verification, transaction monitoring, and fraud prevention. It offers a wide range of verification checks throughout the entire customer lifecycle, from onboarding to ongoing activity and transaction oversight. This TEI will focus on Sumsub’s transaction monitoring feature.
Sumsub commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying Sumsub transaction monitoring.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of AML transaction monitoring on their organizations.
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed a decision-maker who has experience using Sumsub transaction monitoring at their organization. Forrester used this experience to project a three-year financial analysis.
The interviewee said that prior to Sumsub transaction monitoring, their organization was using SQL and spreadsheets to manually create transaction monitoring alerts. Prior attempts yielded limited success, making it difficult for the organization to manage transaction monitoring effectively and access relevant data during investigations. These limitations led to excessive manual effort, a lack of centralized visibility, system instability, and overwhelming volume of alerts.
After the investment in Sumsub transaction monitoring, the interviewee’s organization had a unified data source. Key results from the investment include improved money laundering detection process, increased efficiency in investigations, streamlined management of monitoring rules, and improved ease of meeting regulatory requirements.
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the interviewee’s organization include:
Money laundering detection process savings worth $46,000. By automating alert generation and simplifying reporting, the interviewee’s organization eliminated manual processes, saving 100% of the time previously spent on generating alerts and 90% of the time on weekly operational reporting.
Investigation efficiencies worth $809,000. Sumsub helped reduce the number of alerts for the interviewee’s organization, liberating time for analysts. Additionally, analysts were more efficient due to centralized data access and streamlined case management. They spent one-third less time on AML investigations.
Rules management efficiencies worth $46,000. The financial crime manager noted that their organization could create and update rules directly in Sumsub´s platform without developer support, accelerating deployment and reducing reliance on technical teams or external technical support.
Ease meeting regulatory requirements worth $5,000. According to the interviewee, audit reporting, which once required hours of manual effort, could now be completed in just a few clicks, saving 90% of the time and ensuring data was readily available for regulatory reviews.
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that are not quantified for this study include:
Reduced risk of penalties. The interviewee noted that Sumsub provided automated, real-time identity verification and compliance tools that helped detect and prevent fraud early. This proactive approach supported regulatory compliance and lowered the likelihood of incurring fines.
Regulatory support. Sumsub kept users at the interviewee’s organization up to date with evolving regulations through timely alerts and dashboard notifications, helping teams stay compliant without needing to constantly monitor changes.
Centralized visibility. The interviewee stated that Sumsub provided a unified and immediate view of customer and transaction data, enabling teams to access critical information faster and make more informed decisions.
Improved employee experience. By streamlining workflows and reducing manual workload, the interviewee noted Sumsub helped employees manage their time more effectively, leading to a more balanced and productive work environment.
Enhanced customer experience. Sumsub improved service-level agreement (SLA) performance, allowing the interviewee’s organization’s customers to benefit from faster service and greater trust. This impacted customer satisfaction while secure in-app communication made document submission feel safer and more reliable for customers.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the interviewee’s organization include:
Licensing costs of $131,000. Sumsub charged the organization $4,000 monthly for transaction monitoring.
Implementation, maintenance, and training costs of $112,000. Additional costs were associated with the initial implementation of Sumsub transaction monitoring, the maintenance costs associated with the rules management, and the training costs.
The financial analysis that is based on the interview found that the decision-maker’s organization experiences benefits of $905,000 over three years versus costs of $244,000, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $661,000 and an ROI of 272%.
Return on investment (ROI)
Benefits PV
Net present value (NPV)
Payback
Forrester interviewed a decision-maker who has experience using Sumsub transaction monitoring at their organization. Their organization has the following characteristics:
Fintech company based in Europe with global operation.
$23 million in revenue.
250 employees.
Before engaging with Sumsub transaction monitoring, the interviewee’s organization was using SQL and spreadsheets to manually monitor transaction monitoring alerts. Rules were created manually with the help of the data team, who created scripts and worked with the transaction monitoring team to test and implement the rules.
The interviewee noted how their organization struggled with challenges, including:
A lack of centralized visibility. The interviewee’s organization’s teams relied on multiple disconnected systems and spreadsheets, resulting in no unified view of operations. Users had to constantly switch between platforms just to access basic information, leading to inefficiencies and delays.
Excessive manual effort. Critical tasks, such as rule creation and alert configuration, were handled manually in Excel. This not only consumed valuable time but also increased the risk of human error.
System instability and collaboration issues. Shared spreadsheets caused frequent lags and crashes, especially when multiple users worked simultaneously. Changes made by one user could unintentionally overwrite or disrupt another’s view, leading to confusion and data integrity issues.
Overwhelming volume of alerts. The interviewee noted that employees struggled to manage the high volume of alerts, resulting in increased stress, reduced work quality, and delayed responses to customers. This directly impacted the ability to meet SLAs.
The interviewee´s organization operates within the fintech industry. They initially implemented Sumsub’s user verification solution and, after one year, expanded their use of the platform by integrating transaction monitoring capabilities. They wanted to have a single platform securing the entire customer journey. In Year 1, the team created 28 monitoring rules. Three analysts were dedicated to reviewing transaction monitoring alerts, supported by a team lead who was responsible for creating and managing the rules.
For this use case, Forrester has modeled benefits and costs over three years.
$28 million in annual revenue
250 employees
10,200 alerts in legacy environment
28 rules in Year 1
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Improved money laundering detection process | $18,415 | $18,415 | $18,415 | $55,244 | $45,794 |
| Btr | Improved investigation efficiency | $312,758 | $325,953 | $339,149 | $977,860 | $808,516 |
| Ctr | Optimized rules management efficiency | $26,071 | $13,967 | $13,967 | $54,005 | $45,737 |
| Dtr | Improved ease of meeting regulatory requirements | $1,914 | $1,914 | $1,914 | $5,741 | $4,759 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $359,157 | $360,248 | $373,444 | $1,092,850 | $904,806 |
Evidence and data. The interviewee emphasized the significant time savings using Sumsub for transaction monitoring alerts achieved. Previously, their team spent considerable hours manually generating alerts and formatting spreadsheets. The interviewee explained: “We had to generate and run the script for each separate rule manually on a Monday. So, as you can imagine, that took quite a lot of time to constantly do that. Then, get the download of those alerts, move them to a spreadsheet, [and] format that spreadsheet.” They noted that their organization could now detect AML risk in real time.
In addition, the team lead was dedicating a substantial amount of time to producing operational reports. The financial crime team leader shared: “I can definitely reduce time for operational reporting. I was filtering the spreadsheet, copying, and pasting to another spreadsheet, then filtering the company and pasting to another spreadsheet. It took a lot of time.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interview, Forrester assumes the following about the organization:
It saves 100% of the time generating alerts as the alerts are instantly visible in Sumsub.
The financial crime manager creates weekly operational reporting in a few clicks, reducing the time spent on this task by 90%.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a transaction monitoring analyst is $65 based on an annual salary of $100,000. The standard TEI burden rate is 35% and accounts for additional costs of employment, such as benefits (e.g., healthcare, insurance, bonus, etc.), technology, office space, and employer taxes.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager is $84 based on an annual salary of $130,000. The standard TEI burden rate is 35% and accounts for additional costs of employment, such as benefits (e.g., healthcare, insurance, bonus, etc.), technology, office space, and employer taxes.
A productivity capture rate of 70% is applied as a TEI standard as it can be assumed that users reallocate only a certain part of the time saved to productive work.
Risks. This benefit may vary for organizations based on the following:
The organization’s previous legacy environment.
The salary of relevant employees.
The operational reporting cadence.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $46,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Time required to generate alerts in the legacy system per year (hours) | Interview | 156 | 156 | 156 | |
| A2 | Time required to clean and format the spreadsheets in the legacy system per year (hours) | Interview | 260 | 260 | 260 | |
| A3 | Reduction in time with Sumsub | Interview | 100% | 100% | 100% | |
| A4 | Subtotal: Alerts generation and cleaning time avoided per year (hours) | A3*(A1+A2) | 416 | 416 | 416 | |
| A5 | Reports | Interview | 52 | 52 | 52 | |
| A6 | Preparation time per report in legacy environment (hour) | Interview | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| A7 | Reduction in time with Sumsub | Interview | 90% | 90% | 90% | |
| A8 | Subtotal: Operational reporting time avoided (hours) | A7*(A5*A6) | 47 | 47 | 47 | |
| A9 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a transaction monitoring analyst | TEI methodology | $65 | $65 | $65 | |
| A10 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager | TEI methodology | $84 | $84 | $84 | |
| A11 | Productivity conversion rate | TEI methodology | 70% | 70% | 70% | |
| At | Improved money laundering detection process | ((A4*A9)+(A8*A10))*A11 | $21,664 | $21,664 | $21,664 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Atr | Improved money laundering detection process (risk-adjusted) | $18,415 | $18,415 | $18,415 | ||
| Three-year total: $55,244 | Three-year present value: $45,794 | |||||
Evidence and data. The interviewee highlighted that one of the key advantages of using Sumsub was the reduction in time spent on investigations. Previously, the team had to manage a higher volume of alerts manually, requiring substantial time and effort to investigate. The interviewee said: “Approximately, it used to take around 1 hour to 2 hours per analyst per alert.” With Sumsub, the number of unnecessary alerts decreased, allowing the interviewee’s team to focus on genuine cases more efficiently. The interviewee mentioned, “We have approximately a 10% drop in alerts whilst having more transaction monitoring rules live.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interview, Forrester assumes the following about the organization:
In Year 1, the organization experiences a 10% decrease in overall alerts significantly easing the investigative workload.
As the organization continues to refine its rule set, the volume of alerts has continued to decline in subsequent years.
Analysts save one-third of their time on investigations due to centralized access to all relevant data within the Sumsub platform. Case management is streamlined, and they can easily reach out to customers for detailed information through Sumsub’s communication features.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a transaction monitoring analyst is $65 based on an annual salary of $100,000. The standard TEI burden rate is 35% and accounts for additional costs of employment, such as benefits (e.g., healthcare, insurance, bonus, etc.), technology, office space, and employer taxes.
A productivity capture rate of 70% is applied as a TEI standard as it can be assumed that users reallocate only a certain part of the time saved to productive work.
Risks. This benefit may vary for organizations based on the following:
The organization’s previous legacy environment.
The organization’s risk policies.
The decrease in alerts.
The investigation time per employee.
The salary of relevant employees.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $809,000.
Reduction in investigation time
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Alerts in legacy environment | Interview | 10,200 | 10,200 | 10,200 | |
| B2 | Overall reduction in number of alerts | Interview | 10% | 13% | 15% | |
| B3 | Investigation time per alert in legacy environment (hours) | Interview | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| B4 | Subtotal: Time saved for alerts avoided (hours) | B1*B2*B3 | 2040 | 2550 | 3060 | |
| B5 | Alerts with Sumsub | B1-(B1*B2) | 9,180 | 8,925 | 8,670 | |
| B6 | Reduction in investigation time with Sumsub | Interview | 33% | 33% | 33% | |
| B7 | Subtotal: Time saved in investigation (hours) | B3*B5*B6 | 6,059 | 5,891 | 5,722 | |
| B8 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a transaction monitoring analyst | TEI methodology | $65 | $65 | $65 | |
| B9 | Productivity conversion rate | TEI methodology | 70% | 70% | 70% | |
| Bt | Improved investigation efficiency | (B4+B7)*B8*B9 | $367,950 | $383,475 | $398,999 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Btr | Improved investigation efficiency (risk-adjusted) | $312,758 | $325,953 | $339,149 | ||
| Three-year total: $977,860 | Three-year present value: $808,516 | |||||
Evidence and data. The interviewee emphasized how Sumsub streamlined the process of creating and managing rules. They explained: “Previously, we had to create a ticket for our data team to create a new script, test that script, then deploy it and then test it. Sumsub saved us time and effort.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interview, Forrester assumes the following about the organization:
In Year 1, 28 rules are created. In Year 2 and 3, 15 rules are either created or modified, reflecting ongoing optimization of the transaction monitoring process.
The financial crime manager creates and updates rules directly within the Sumsub platform, eliminating the need for support from the data teams or Sumsub.
The average fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager is $84 based on an annual salary of $130,000. The standard TEI burden rate is 35% and accounts for additional costs of employment, such as benefits (e.g., healthcare, insurance, bonus, etc.), technology, office space, and employer taxes.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a developer is $91 based on an annual salary of $140,000. The standard TEI burden rate is 35% and accounts for additional costs of employment, such as benefits (e.g., healthcare, insurance, bonus, etc.), technology, office space, and employer taxes.
A productivity capture rate of 70% is applied as a TEI standard as it can be assumed that users reallocate only a certain part of the time saved to productive work.
Risks. This benefit may vary for organizations based on the following:
The organization’s previous legacy environment.
The number of rules set up.
The salary of relevant employees.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $46,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Rules created/modified | Interview | 28 | 15 | 15 | |
| C2 | Rule creation time of developer in legacy environment (person hour) | Interview | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| C3 | Rule creation time of financial crime manager in legacy environment (person hour) | Interview | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| C4 | Rule creation time of financial crime manager with Sumsub (person hour) | TEI methodology | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
| C5 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager involved in the rule management | TEI methodology | $84 | $84 | $84 | |
| C6 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a developer involved in the rule management | TEI methodology | $91 | $91 | $91 | |
| C7 | Productivity conversion rate | TEI methodology | 70% | 70% | 70% | |
| Ct | Optimized rules management efficiency | C1*(C2*C6+C5*(C3-C4))*C7 | $30,672 | $16,431 | $16,431 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Ctr | Optimized rules management efficiency (risk-adjusted) | $26,071 | $13,967 | $13,967 | ||
| Three-year total: $54,005 | Three-year present value: $45,737 | |||||
Evidence and data. The interviewee’s organization used Sumsub to meet regulatory requirements. Sumsub helped the interviewee’s organization create audit reports easily without having to spend hours looking for the correct data. The interviewee mentioned: “One of the issues we faced previously was not having data readily available. If something was requested [during an audit], it took us a lot of time just to export that information whereas now, it’s like a click of a button.”
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interview, Forrester assumes the following about the organization:
The organization undergoes four audits annually, each requiring the review of 20 user records.
The financial crime manager generates audit reporting in a few clicks, saving 90% time on this task compared to previous manual processes.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager is $84 based on an annual salary of $130,000. The standard TEI burden rate is 35% and accounts for additional costs of employment, such as benefits (e.g., healthcare, insurance, bonus, etc.), technology, office space, and employer taxes.
A productivity capture rate of 70% is applied as a TEI standard as it can be assumed that users reallocate only a certain part of the time saved to productive work.
Risks. This benefit may vary for organizations based on the following:
The total number of yearly audits and the number of users being audited.
The organization’s previous legacy environment.
The salary of relevant employees.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $5,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Audits (yearly) | Interview | 4 | 4 | 4 | |
| D2 | Users audited per audit | Interview | 20 | 20 | 20 | |
| D3 | Preparation time per user in legacy environment (person hour) | Interview | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
| D4 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager involved in the audit | TEI methodology | $84 | $84 | $84 | |
| D5 | Reduction in time with Sumsub | Interview | 90% | 90% | 90% | |
| D6 | Productivity conversion rate | TEI methodology | 70% | 70% | 70% | |
| Dt | Improved ease of meeting regulatory requirements | D1*D2*D3*D4*D5*D6 | $2,126 | $2,126 | $2,126 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓10% | |||||
| Dtr | Improved ease of meeting regulatory requirements (risk-adjusted) | $1,914 | $1,914 | $1,914 | ||
| Three-year total: $5,741 | Three-year present value: $4,759 | |||||
The interviewee mentioned the following additional benefits that the organization experienced but was not able to quantify:
Reduced risk of penalties. The interviewee noted that Sumsub provided automated, real-time identity verification and compliance tools that helped detect and prevent fraud before it escalated, therefore minimizing risk. Sumsub enabled the interviewee’s organization to stay compliant and avoid costly fines. The financial crime team leader said, “I wouldn’t be able to give you an amount, but we definitely have less risk of getting fined.”
Under increasing regulatory scrutiny, maintaining AML compliance continues to be a daunting challenge for many financial institutions. In 2025, regulators’ focus on enhanced due diligence, beneficial ownership of accounts and funds, and alternative (crypto, peer-to-peer) payments have further complicated AML requirements.2
Regulators like FinCEN (US), FINTRAC (Canada), FSA (UK), and AMLA (EU) impose significant fines and sanctions on financial institutions that fail to meet their antifraud and compliance obligations. In the UK, noncompliance with Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) requirements can even result in the loss of a firm’s operating license.
In recent years, financial institutions have faced substantial penalties for AML and compliance failures, in 2024, a total of approximately $4.5 billion was fined globally, underscoring the importance of robust, proactive compliance systems.3
Expected fines amount*Risk factor before Sumsub*Risk reduction factor with Sumsub
Regulatory support. Sumsub kept users informed of regulatory changes through timely updates and alerts, actively supporting the interviewee’s organization’s compliance efforts. The financial crime team leader mentioned: “When there is an emerging regulation, or emerging updates to policies and legislation, Sumsub is quite forthcoming. On the dashboard, there would be pop-ups, so you know there is a new regulation.”
Centralized visibility. The interviewee stated that Sumsub provided a unified platform that offered comprehensive and real-time visibility into client information by consolidating all relevant data in one place. The financial crime team leader shared: “Sumsub gives us a broader view of the customers. There is certain information that we didn’t have immediately at the time where now we’re able to see straight away.” The interviewee further emphasized the strategic value of the platform, “Our whole goal was to have a central interface with one dashboard, and it just made sense to go with Sumsub.”
Improved employee experience. As Sumsub increased automation, the interviewee noted their organization’s employees that worked on Sumsub transaction monitoring had more time available and could focus on more value-added tasks, resulting in increased employee satisfaction, reduced stress, and increased quality of work. The financial crime team leader said: “Employees had issues previously just managing time, managing their workload and things like that. It definitely improved the workload side of things.”
Enhanced customer experience. The interviewee’s organization experienced overall customer journey improvements. Sumsub generated alerts in real time, replacing their organization’s previous weekly alert cycle. This shift reduced delays and helped the team manage alerts more efficiently. As a result, SLAs were met more consistently. The financial crime team leader noted, “We used to get a lot more complaints from customers because the reviews were taking a lot longer.”
In addition, the interviewee noted that customer trust and satisfaction increased due to more secure and direct communication channels for document submission. Instead of relying on email, the team contacted customers through Sumsub’s integrated platform. The financial crime team leader mentioned: “We had issues with customers not trusting us too much because we were messaging them through email whereas now, we can directly reach out for information through Sumsub. Customers find that a bit more secure to upload documents through the app.”
The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement Sumsub transaction monitoring and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
Expanding to additional business lines. The interviewee stated that their organization is currently only using Sumsub for its B2C segment, but it was keen to expand its use of Sumsub to B2B customers. The interviewee noted, “We are expanding into the B2B market now, which we would like to add to Sumsub.”
Unlocking additional features. The interviewee noted their organization is planning on using additional Sumsub features to further enhance its compliance and monitoring capabilities in the future, such as AI scripts for rule creation, behavioral analytics, and scoring features. The financial crime team leader stated: “We have seen some features that look promising for us like the scoring feature. We are hoping to implement something like this with our transaction monitoring. It will change the methodology of how we review transaction monitoring alerts, but that is something we are looking into.” They expected these enhancements to streamline operations, improve detection accuracy, and support a more proactive approach to financial crime prevention.
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Total Economic Impact Approach).
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Etr | Licensing costs | $0 | $52,800 | $52,800 | $52,800 | $158,400 | $131,306 |
| Ftr | Implementation, maintenance, and training costs | $41,880 | $52,261 | $14,479 | $14,479 | $123,098 | $112,234 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $41,880 | $105,061 | $67,279 | $67,279 | $281,498 | $243,540 |
Evidence and data. The interviewee noted that Sumsub offered a flexible pricing structure for its transaction monitoring solution tailored to the specific needs of their organization. The pricing was based on factors like company size and industry and followed a commitment structure where they agreed to a minimum monthly payment depending on their anticipated usage. Any usage beyond the agreed amount incurred additional charges. The interviewee noted their organization had the option to choose between monthly payments or a deposit model, ensuring that the interviewee’s organization only paid for what it used. This approach would ensure that the solution was scalable and cost-effective for both smaller firms and large enterprises with varying transaction volumes.
Modeling and assumptions. To quantify this cost, Forrester assumes the fixed fee is set at $4,000 per month.
Risks. The cost may vary for different organizations based on the following:
The volume of transactions.
The size and industry of the organization.
The organization’s region, exchange rate, and change over time.
Existing relationship and product lines with Sumsub.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $131,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | License agreement for transaction monitoring | Interview | $48,000 | $48,000 | $48,000 | |
| Et | Licensing costs | E1 | $48,000 | $48,000 | $48,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Etr | Licensing costs (risk-adjusted) | $52,800 | $52,800 | $52,800 | ||
| Three-year total: $158,400 | Three-year present value: $131,306 | |||||
Evidence and data. In addition to the licensing fee, the interviewee shared that their organization worked closely with Sumsub during the implementation phase. This collaboration included support for integrations, onboarding, and training. Additionally, the financial crime manager played an ongoing role in maintaining the platform.
The financial crime team leader said: “Three rules were added at the beginning, and then every week we were adding two to three rules. It took about two months just because of the number of rules we had previously.”
They also mentioned: “We needed training on the rule creation side. But in terms of using the actual case management tool, it was quite self-explanatory. It was quite easy — we did not need training. For the actual rule creation side of things, we had two workshops of 1 hour each that were held on how to create rules.”
Modeling and assumptions. To quantify this cost, Forrester assumes the following:
The initial implementation support fees for Sumsub transaction monitoring are $1,000. It requires 5 FTEs working 2 hours a day over a two-month period.
In Year 1, the organization integrates unhosted wallet verification and Crypto Monitoring. For those integrations, two FTEs spend 2 hours per day for two weeks.
Each employee working with Sumsub transaction monitoring has two 1-hour workshops for training.
In Year 1, 1 FTE spends 2 hours a day and then 3 hours weekly maintaining and creating rules.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a transaction monitoring analyst is $65 based on an annual salary of $100,000.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager is $84 based on an annual salary of $130,000.
The fully burdened hourly rate for a developer is $91 based on an annual salary of $140,000.
Risks. The cost may vary for different organizations based on the following:
The scale of deployment, complexity of the IT, and the legacy environment as well as previous Sumsub implementation (such as know your customer [KYC]).
The number of users, which varies depending on the company size and industry.
The average salary for analysts, managers, and developers involved.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $112,000.
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | Implementation costs | Interview | $1,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| F2 | Internal developers involved in implementation | Interview | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| F3 | Hours required by FTEs for implementation | Interview | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| F4 | Transaction monitoring analysts involved in training | Interview | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| F5 | Financial crime managers involved in training | Interview | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| F6 | Hours required by FTEs for training | Interview | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| F7 | Financial crime managers involved in rules management | Interview | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| F8 | Hours required by FTEs for rules management | Interview | 0 | 520 | 156 | 156 |
| F9 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a transaction monitoring analyst | TEI methodology | $65 | $65 | $65 | $65 |
| F10 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a financial crime manager | TEI methodology | $84 | $84 | $84 | $84 |
| F11 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a developer | TEI methodology | $91 | $91 | $91 | $91 |
| Ft | Implementation, maintenance, and training costs | F1+(F2*F3*F11)+(F4*F6*F9)+(F5*F6*F10)+(F7*F8*F10) | $38,073 | $47,510 | $13,163 | $13,163 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Ftr | Implementation, maintenance, and training costs (risk-adjusted) | $41,880 | $52,261 | $14,479 | $14,479 | |
| Three-year total: $123,098 | Three-year present value: $112,234 | |||||
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($41,880) | ($105,061) | ($67,279) | ($67,279) | ($281,498) | ($243,540) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $359,157 | $360,248 | $373,444 | $1,092,850 | $904,806 |
| Net benefits | ($41,880) | $254,097 | $292,970 | $306,165 | $811,351 | $661,266 |
| ROI | 272% | |||||
| Payback | <6 months |
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
From the information provided in the interview, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in Sumsub transaction monitoring.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Sumsub transaction monitoring can have on an organization.
Interviewed Sumsub stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to Sumsub transaction monitoring.
Interviewed a decision-maker with experience using Sumsub transaction monitoring at their organization to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
Constructed a financial model representative of the interview using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewee.
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Benefits represent the value the solution delivers to the business. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and costs, allowing for a full examination of the solution’s effect on the entire organization.
Costs comprise all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the solution. The methodology captures implementation and ongoing costs associated with the solution.
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. The ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PV of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.
The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made unless other projects have higher NPVs.
A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.
The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.
The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Related Forrester Research
The Forrester Wave™: Anti-Money-Laundering Solutions, Q2 2025, Forrester Research, Inc., April 08, 2025.
The Anti-Money-Laundering Solutions Landscape, Q4 2024, Forrester Research, Inc., November 05, 2024.
Online Resources
More information about global fines is available at https://financefeeds.com/2024-bank-fines-total-4-5-billion-globally-led-by-u-s-enforcement/.
1 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
2 Source: Rick Steves, 2024 Bank Fines Total $4.5 Billion Globally, Led by U.S. Enforcement, FinanceFeeds, March 26, 2025.
3 Source: Rick Steves, 2024 Bank Fines Total $4.5 Billion Globally, Led by U.S. Enforcement, FinanceFeeds, March 26, 2025.
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by Sumsub and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in Sumsub transaction monitoring.
Sumsub reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
Sumsub provided the customer name for the interview but did not participate in the interview.
Emilie Beaud
Sanny Mok
June 2025
ABOUT FORRESTER CONSULTING
Forrester provides independent and objective research-based consulting to help leaders deliver key transformation outcomes. Fueled by our customer-obsessed research, Forrester’s seasoned consultants partner with leaders to execute on their priorities using a unique engagement model that tailors to diverse needs and ensures lasting impact. For more information, visit forrester.com/consulting.
© Forrester Research, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited. Information is based on best available resources. Opinions reflect judgment at the time and are subject to change. Forrester®, Technographics®, Forrester Wave, and Total Economic Impact are trademarks of Forrester Research, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies.
https://mainstayadvisor.com/go/mainstay/gdpr/policy.html
PDF