Replacing Sanctions and PEP Screening Software: Costs, Savings and ROI

Your company already screens customers against sanctions and politically exposed person (PEP) sources. The question is whether keeping the current provider makes financial sense—or whether a replacement can deliver the coverage and operating controls you need at a lower total cost.

Start with what you pay today, what the replacement would cost and what you would spend on the switch. Lower subscription fees may be enough to justify the change. If the new system also saves your team time, measure that benefit separately.

This article works through the calculation for 5,000 screening checks per month. For the technical transition, use the screening software migration control plan. For general billing and contract comparison, use the software cost guide.

Define the current service you would replace

For an existing vendor, gather the contract and recent invoices. Record the subscription, included usage, overages, optional datasets, monitoring, users, integrations and support. Separate services that would be replaced from services that your organisation would keep. A large contract may include identity verification or other functions that a screening-only replacement does not cover.

For an internal system, the baseline includes data licences or source-maintenance work, matching software, infrastructure, engineering and operational oversight. A database alone is not the whole screening capability. Identify which cash expenses would disappear and which staff would continue doing other work after a switch.

Compare the switch with the cost of staying: your next renewal, expected usage and any upgrades you would need.

Compare the same screening job

A price per customer, API call or screen can describe different things. Write down the actual workload before multiplying a rate.

Compare representative subjects and expected outcomes before accepting the replacement. Similar dataset categories do not establish identical coverage or behaviour. A possible PEP match is not a sanctions prohibition, and a candidate is not identity confirmation. Final legal and relationship decisions remain with the business.

For firms using the UK FCA Financial Crime Guide, section 7.2.3 discusses risk-appropriate screening, calibration, testing, resourcing and oversight of outsourced services. These are useful evaluation questions within that supervisory context; they do not establish a universal software mandate or endorse a vendor. The sanctions software buyer guide develops the evaluation process.

A worked example: 5,000 screens per month

Assume 5,000 standalone AML checks each month for twelve months, one check per supplied subject at each screening event. This is 60,000 checks per year, not necessarily 60,000 distinct customers. The Checklynx model below excludes separate monitoring and adverse-media usage, taxes and custom enterprise terms.

Public prices were checked on 11 October 2026. Customer-reported prices and example assumptions are identified below. Compare the services included in your own contract before using these figures.

Checklynx: calculate the progressive tiers

Checklynx's published subscription is €49 per month, including 99 AML checks. Those checks cover sanctions, PEP and watchlists. Additional checks use progressive volume tiers; reaching 5,000 checks does not retroactively price every check at €0.05.

That produces €5,508.60 per year for this workload. Check the current pricing calculator when preparing your own proposal. Monitoring has a separate active-customer billing model that includes initial screening and rechecks; do not add those again as standalone checks. Adverse media is separately billed.

LexisNexis: a supplied annual-cost example

For this example, Checklynx supplied a LexisNexis screening cost of 60K per year for 5,000 customers per month. The currency and full package details were not supplied, so the calculation assumes €60,000 a year for comparable screening. This is an illustrative comparison based on that figure, rather than a published LexisNexis price.

That is €4,540.95 per month in potential fee savings before switching and any additional operating costs. Confirm currency, purchased datasets, monitoring, other bundled services and what expenditure actually ends before using this figure in an approval decision. Test the coverage you need before deciding to switch.

Didit: public per-screen pricing

Didit publishes US$0.20 per AML screen. Multiplying the undiscounted list rate by 5,000 gives US$1,000 per month, or US$12,000 per year. Its pricing describes volume discounts; the actual offered price at this workload may therefore differ. Didit's support documentation states that AML checks are not included in its free KYC allowance.

The published AML module includes adverse media as well as sanctions and PEP screening, whereas Checklynx bills adverse media separately. Normalise the required package, then convert both costs into the same currency using your finance team's dated exchange-rate assumption. Do not subtract a euro price directly from a dollar price. Didit also announces pricing changes from 1 November 2026, so recheck the applicable rate before signing off the comparison.

sanctions.io: customer-reported package pricing

Customers who moved from sanctions.io to Checklynx have told us that their sanctions, PEP and wanted-list package cost twice as much as sanctions screening alone. That reflects the contracts those customers had; your quote may differ.

When comparing costs, check which datasets are included. sanctions.io offers PEP screening as a separate option in its pricing calculator, so a sanctions-only price is not a like-for-like comparison with Checklynx's sanctions, PEP and watchlist checks.

For the 5,000-screen monthly example, use a quote covering all the datasets you need and 60,000 screens per year. Include any monitoring or access requirements before calculating the saving.

Calculate fee savings, cash payback and ROI separately

Use one currency and one time period. First calculate the recurring cash benefit:

Monthly net cash benefit = incumbent expense that ends − replacement recurring expense − additional recurring operating expense.

Next calculate the change cost: integration, data preparation, security review, acceptance testing, training, parallel operation, evidence exports and any unavoidable contract overlap. Internal salaried project hours consume capacity even when they do not create a new cash payment. Show them separately from incremental cash expenditure.

For stable positive monthly benefits after cutover:

Simple cash payback = one-time incremental switching expenditure ÷ monthly net cash benefit.

For a stated evaluation period and a positive switching-investment amount:

Replacement cash ROI = (cumulative net recurring cash benefit − one-time switching expenditure) ÷ one-time switching expenditure × 100%.

These are planning formulas, not accounting standards or a full discounted-cash-flow model. Show the period, timing, cost treatment and exclusions. If benefits vary, calculate dated cash flows and find when cumulative net cash flow becomes positive. If recurring benefit is zero or negative, there is no simple cash payback from those benefits.

Payback in the €60,000 incumbent scenario

Using the €54,491.40 annual fee saving above, set aside an illustrative €10,000 budget for the switch. Assume the old subscription ends when the new one starts and ongoing operating costs stay the same. The €10,000 is an example budget, not a Checklynx fee.

Here, the subscription saving pays for the switch. The result depends on ending the old expense and confirming that the replacement meets your requirements.

Test switching costs and delayed savings

How much could you spend on the switch before the saving becomes less attractive? Here are three example budgets using the same monthly saving.

Timing matters as much as the headline payback. Suppose the incumbent keeps charging for three months while you also pay Checklynx. With the €10,000 switching budget and no other changes, the extra replacement fees during overlap are €1,377.15. Recovery then takes about 2.5 months after full savings begin, or 5.5 months from the start of that three-month overlap. The cash gain during the first twelve months from that start is €29,491.40, because only nine months deliver the full saving.

Avoid charging the overlap twice: in this example, the incumbent fee during those three months also exists in the stay-with-incumbent baseline. The incremental outflow is the added replacement fee. A separate exit penalty or additional contractual charge would require its own line.

Keep analyst efficiency outside the headline fee comparison

A lower subscription can establish a cash-saving case even if analyst workload is unchanged. Conversely, a cheaper service that adds substantial review work can erode the benefit. Measure the difference using representative cases, accepted coverage and configuration.

Record candidate counts, active review minutes by case type, escalations, repeated work, reconciliation and evidence retrieval. A screening request is not an alert; fewer alerts do not alone demonstrate better quality. Include any additional quality assurance or manual intervention in the replacement workload.

If the new process releases 40 salaried hours per month but payroll stays unchanged, report 40 hours of available capacity, not a cash salary saving. A contractor reduction, overtime reduction or documented deferred hire needs a separate finance-owned realisation plan. Do not count the same hours as both freed capacity and a second cash benefit in the total.

Turn the comparison into a replacement decision

Use a short approval record with the supporting invoices, quotes and evaluation results behind it.

Decide the post-cutover review date in the plan, aligned with the first meaningful invoice and workload period. Compare actual expenses with the forecast and investigate any control or workload deterioration. The migration control guide covers population reconciliation, monitoring continuity, case context and historical evidence through the transition.

Evaluate replacing your provider with Checklynx

Compare your current screening package with Checklynx sanctions screening, PEP screening and the current pricing calculator. Use your own population, required datasets and evaluation criteria to confirm the fit. Checklynx's lower cost in a defined comparison is useful only alongside acceptable coverage and operational controls.

Bring the incumbent invoice, annual usage and necessary package to an evaluation. Build the financial case from the subscription difference first, then add switching costs and any independently measured operating effects. The result should tell your team whether the replacement pays back, when that happens and which conditions must remain true.

Frequently asked questions

Can lower subscription fees alone justify replacing screening software?

Yes, if the replacement meets the required scope and quality and the expense reduction exceeds switching and additional operating costs over the chosen period. Lower fees can make the case without reducing staff.

Is 5,000 customers the same as 5,000 screens?

Only when the defined workflow makes exactly one check per customer in that period. Related-party checks, repeat checks and company/person checks can create additional usage. An active monitored population is a different billing model from a monthly count of standalone screens.

Can we compare named vendors using customer-reported prices?

Use the specific contract's scope, date, currency, usage and terms, and identify the evidence as customer-reported when it is not public. A supplied figure is not a universal tariff. Public list prices may also differ from a negotiated quote.

Does a successful price comparison establish equivalent coverage?

No. Compare the actual sources, data scope, screening events and operational behaviour, then test representative cases. Similar category names and lower fees do not establish that the replacement meets every requirement.