duely

Positions itself on breadth of obligation coverage rather than on verification volume: program build, scoping, CDD and KYB, ongoing monitoring, ECDD, UAR through to SMR, TTR and CBM registers, reliance, record keeping, training, and program effectiveness testing, organised around a matter rather than a client.

Two capabilities that were not found in any competitor researched, and which therefore need confirming vendor-by-vendor before being described as differentiators:

• AUSTRAC SMR XML export. Every other vendor researched either stays silent on export format or describes SMR preparation producing a PDF for manual submission. See the round-1 research source for the per-vendor detail.
• Program effectiveness testing with a corrective-action loop and s84 independent-evaluation tracking. AMLHUB also names independent evaluation support.

Where it is weaker

The limitations above are not softened, and three deserve emphasis for a buyer weighing this against alternatives.

Integrations. First AML names twelve practice-management and property platforms plus a public API; StackGo embeds directly into accounting practice software. duely names none. For a firm that wants AML to run inside its existing systems, that is a decisive gap.

Scale. The operating entity is not registered for GST, which places turnover below $75,000. Every other vendor entity resolved in this research is GST registered. A firm entrusting a supplier with seven years of customer identity records may reasonably weigh that.

No DVS. Not live at time of review. Competitors including TrustSoft name DVS explicitly as a verification source.

DVS status

Recorded as no because the capability is not live. The vendor states an access application is submitted and awaiting approval, and that AGD has approved the wording it will use. Both are recorded as vendor statements; neither is verifiable from public sources, and approved wording is a step in onboarding rather than a grant of access.

The capability value will change when access is granted, not before. A pending application is a fact about an application.

A field deliberately not recorded

An earlier draft of this record listed a limitation about customer base and absence of third-party reviews. It has been removed, and the reason is worth stating because it cuts against this record rather than for it.

Customer counts are not verifiable from public sources, and no other record in this directory carries the field. A limitation applied to one provider and not the rest is not rigour, it is the neutrality failure running in the opposite direction, and a framework that bites one product harder than the rest is as broken as one that spares it.

GST registration answers the underlying question, capacity to support a seven-year obligation, from the public register, and is recorded for every provider identically. Entity registration date is also recorded on every profile, but is not scored: treating age as a metric asserts that older predicts better, which nothing here evidences.

On the SMR XML claim

smrExportFormat: austrac-xml is recorded from duely's own published product summary, which states it produces AUSTRAC SMR 2.0 XML. It is a vendor claim, carrying exactly the weight of any other vendor's claim about its own product, and no more.

Every competitor is recorded unknown on this field, and that must not be read as duely being the only product capable of it. It means duely is the only vendor that makes the claim publicly. Several competitors describe SMR preparation producing a PDF; most say nothing about format at all. Until each is asked directly, the honest statement is about who has said what, not about what the products can do.