Method
How a record on this site gets built, what it means when a field says “not established”, and how a provider gets something fixed.
How records are built
Every claim on a provider profile traces back to a source we can point to: the provider's own pricing page, its published security or data-residency documentation, its terms, or the Australian Business Register. Each source is listed on the profile with a URL and the date we checked it, because pricing and product claims change and a reader deserves to know how fresh a figure is.
We do not use vendor comparison sites, review aggregators, or other directories as evidence for a capability claim, even when they agree with each other. A claim repeated by three comparison sites that all copied the same original page is one source, not three, and comparison sites routinely carry paid placement we have no way to detect. If a provider's own site does not say something, the field is recorded as unverified rather than filled in from somewhere else.
What "Not established" means
A field marked "Not established" means we could not verify that capability from a public source at the time of review, not that the product lacks it. The distinction matters because a blank or a plain "No" would misrepresent a real business that simply hasn't documented a feature publicly, or that we haven't yet asked directly.
Roughly half of the fields across the records in this directory are currently unverified. That is a statement about the limits of public-source research, not about the providers. As profiles are claimed and corrected, or as we confirm claims directly with vendors, that share should fall. We would rather show a gap than guess to make a table look complete.
Why prices are normalised
Providers do not quote prices on a common basis. Some publish GST-inclusive figures, some publish GST-exclusive figures and say so, some publish a number with no stated basis at all, and at least one publishes in US dollars. Read at face value, none of those headline figures are comparable to each other.
Where a provider does not state otherwise, we treat its published figure as GST-exclusive, multiply by 1.1, and show the GST-inclusive amount as the large figure with the as-published figure and basis underneath it in smaller type. A provider that is price-on-application shows "Price on application" and nothing else. We do not estimate a number to fill the space, and those providers sort after everyone with a published price rather than being ranked by a guess.
Product types
"AML software" is not one kind of thing. Across the records in this directory we see five structurally different products: an end-to-end platform that covers program, CDD, screening and reporting in one place; a verification layer that does identity and biometric checks but leaves the rest of the program to the firm; a document pack that produces the paperwork without running any workflow; a browser-local register that keeps records on the user's own device rather than hosting them; and AML modules bolted onto a product that is primarily something else, such as practice-management software.
Each profile states its product type before showing a price, deliberately in that order, so a document pack is never read against a hosted platform on cost alone. Comparing those two things on price is comparing a form template to a subscription service. The number is real; the comparison is not.
Entity data
Every profile shows the registered legal entity behind the product, its ABN, its ABN registration date, and its GST registration status, sourced from the Australian Business Register and linked so a reader can check it directly. We show this because a reporting entity under the AML/CTF Act is expected to do due diligence on the suppliers it hands customer identity data to, and no other site in this category surfaces that information on the profile itself.
Registration date is shown but not scored. A newer entity is not treated as worse in any ranking here, because that would assert that age predicts quality, which nothing in this research supports. It is shown because it is material to a buyer's own judgement, not because we have made the judgement for them.
Corrections
A provider can claim its own listing and request a correction. We ask for evidence, either a link to the page that supports the change or another public source, because the standard for a correction is the same as the standard for the original record: it has to be checkable by someone other than the person asking for it.
Corrections are reviewed before they go live, not published automatically on request. A limitation is not removed just because a provider asks. It is corrected if it is factually wrong, and left in place, with the correction reflected, if it is accurate but unwelcome. The whole point of this directory is that a listing reflects what the evidence shows, not what the subject of the listing would prefer it to show.
Who runs this
AML Directory is operated by AllSpice Technologies Pty Ltd. Nobody pays for placement, ranking or inclusion, no provider has editorial input into its own record, and there is no advertising on this site.
The comparison criteria are fixed across every record and deliberately include measures that are unflattering to cover: named practice-management and property-software integrations, transaction monitoring, DVS access, low-volume cost, whether a free trial exists, and GST registration status. A framework built only from measures that flatter is marketing in a comparison's clothes. Where a product falls short, that shortfall is recorded with the same specificity for every provider.