A crowded vendor market and a build, buy or partner decision due
The fraud and risk technology market across digital banking and payments was crowded with vendors making overlapping claims about detection, authentication and orchestration capability.
The client had a capital allocation decision in front of it, build the capability internally, buy a vendor platform, or partner, and needed to know which technologies were actually maturing rather than which ones had the loudest marketing.
Patent ownership mattered too: a vendor's roadmap is only as durable as the IP underneath it, and that was not visible from a product demo.
We mapped the patents and tested the claims against risk teams who actually run them
A vendor and patent landscape assessment mapped which detection, authentication and orchestration technologies were maturing, who owned the underlying intellectual property, and where the genuine white spaces sat.
Structured interviews with risk, fraud and compliance leaders at institutions running these technologies tested real-world performance directly against what vendors claimed in their own materials.
Where a vendor's claimed performance and a practitioner's actual experience disagreed, that gap was treated as a signal, not noise.
A build, buy or partner case grounded in patents and practitioner evidence
The landscape assessment informed the client's build, buy and partner choices with a clear view of which vendors' claims held up against practitioner experience and which did not.
Patent ownership mapping identified where genuine white space existed for a differentiated build, rather than a capability every competitor could already licence from the same handful of vendors.
The client took the investment case for new capability spend to its own leadership with evidence behind every recommendation, not a vendor's own comparison chart.
