EyesClear

Overview

EyesClear is a financial-crime compliance product for financial institutions that need to investigate alerts and document analyst decisions. Its case workflow is strongest for organisations that can run software on premises or in a private cloud; a separate browser-based screening service offers a lower-commitment starting point. The key trade-off is scope: EyesClear helps resolve alerts from a screening platform, but does not screen payments in real time.

Key features

Alert and case workflow

The Platform brings compliance alerts into one queue, gathers evidence, drafts case narratives and routes decisions to analysts. Cases still require an analyst to review, edit and sign before action. That human checkpoint supports accountable decisions, but the workflow assists rather than replaces analyst capacity.

Screening with source evidence

Investigations checks people and companies against public records, then returns findings with quotations from their sources. It can run in a browser without integration or deployment, or pass findings into an existing case system. That makes it useful for investigating sanctions and name-matching alerts, not as a substitute for the system that detects payment activity.

Deployment, integrations and control

The Platform connects to SWIFT, ISO 20022, MQ, Kafka, databases and files covering CRM, transactions, risk and KYC. It and its AI inference run inside the bank’s environment; customer data and model inference are not sent to an external cloud or third-party vendor. Evidence, case history, decisions and user activity are centrally recorded with audit trails. Investigations is different: for a screening, it sends the subject’s name and derived search terms to public sources and the language models it uses, not customer files, transactions or alerts. Institutions should weigh that hosted-service data flow separately from the Platform’s in-environment processing.

Pricing

EyesClear Investigations

0.00 USD per free. The service is free to financial institutions and their regulators. A new account includes five screening credits, with one credit used per screening. That is enough to try a handful of checks, but the initial allowance is limited for ongoing screening.

EyesClear Platform

Custom pricing. Request a demo to discuss the Platform. It is the relevant option for institutions seeking the integrated alert and case workflow, but those wanting a public, self-serve price cannot compare its cost from the stated terms.

Platforms

EyesClear supports self-hosted and web use. The Platform is deployed on premises or in a private cloud, while Investigations is a hosted browser service. Their distinct deployment models let an institution use screening independently or pursue an in-environment case workflow.

Who it's for

EyesClear best suits financial institutions and regulators that need public-record checks, or banks looking to organise compliance alerts into auditable cases while keeping Platform processing inside their own environment. Its customer risk assessment, transaction monitoring, case management and regulatory reporting capabilities point to a broader compliance workflow. It is not the right fit for buyers whose requirement is real-time payment screening, since EyesClear resolves alerts raised by another screening platform instead.

Pros and cons

Pros

• Analyst sign-off stays central: cases require review, edits and a signature before action, rather than closing automatically.
• In-environment Platform processing: customer data and AI inference remain inside the bank’s environment, a meaningful distinction for institutions with strict data-control needs.
• Useful screening without deployment: Investigations works in a browser and can feed an existing case system; financial institutions and regulators can start with five free credits.
• Auditable case records: evidence, decisions, case history and user activity are recorded, supporting review of how cases were handled.

Cons

• No real-time payment screening: institutions must already have a screening platform raising the alerts EyesClear helps resolve.
• Investigations has a small starting allowance: five credits cover only five screenings on a new account.
• Platform cost requires a demo request: buyers cannot assess its price against a budget from a published figure.
• The two services have different data boundaries: Investigations sends names and derived search terms to public sources and its language models, unlike the Platform’s in-environment inference.

Alternatives

AML Compliance Software is the broader category directory for comparing options.

Marble Case Manager is worth considering for buyers who prioritise a free, open-source, self-hosted option with a real-time decision engine and community support. Eastnets SafeWatch AML is a paid web-based alternative. Hawk AML is a paid option with API, self-hosted and web platforms.

Lucinity Platform may suit buyers who want a modular stack and a free trial, with pay-as-you-go, upfront or committed-usage pricing. Oracle Financial Services Anti-Money Laundering offers a pay-per-use cloud service tailored to AML and financial-crime requirements, with the ability to scale usage up or down. Temenos Wealth Front Office is another paid option across API, self-hosted and web platforms. ThetaRay RAY Platform requires a discovery call for pricing. Unit21 uses custom pricing available by demo request.

Verdict

Choose EyesClear if your institution needs an auditable analyst case workflow with Platform processing inside its own environment, or wants a simple route to public-record screening. Its clearest reason to look elsewhere is equally direct: it does not screen payments in real time, and its Platform price requires a demo request.