Every category where a model named Alessa for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant	Since September 2026
AML and transaction monitoring	Tax and compliance	2%	7 of 108	0%	17	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Alessa yet. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment and per category, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Alessa across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.

ShowHide

Model	First choice	Alternative	Mention	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	1	2	0	3
GPT-5.4 mini	0	0	0	0
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	0	0	0	0
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	3	1	4
Mistral Small	0	2	0	2
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	2	1	3
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	1	2	3
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	0	0	1	1
GPT-6 Luna	0	0	0	0
Muse Glimmer 30B	0	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct12 labels2

Paraphrase3 labelsNone

Comparative19 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative4 labelsNone

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative42 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 of the 3 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Alessa is another strong contender specifically positioned for mid-market organizations.” Claude Haiku 4.5 · AML monitoring · direct prompt · first choice

“If compliance case volume is already high and you need robust investigation workflows, Alessa or Lucinity are safer bets.” Kimi K2 · AML monitoring · direct prompt · alternative

“If you need a more rules-based, configurable solution at a mid-market price point, Alessa is also highly recommended.” Mistral Small · AML monitoring · direct prompt · alternative

“Strong for mid-tier (real-time/periodic/event-based monitoring; suits banks, MSBs, casinos).” Grok 4.1 Fast · AML monitoring · comparative prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

No model argued against it.

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Alessa, over the 42 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Alessa was named but was not.

ShowHide

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

ComplyAdvantage30 of 428Compare →

Unit2120 of 426Compare →

NICE Actimize19 of 423Not among the top eight

Flagright14 of 428Compare →

Hawk AI14 of 420Not among the top eight

Sanction Scanner13 of 424Compare →

Sardine13 of 420Not among the top eight

Oracle Financial Crime and Compliance Management11 of 422Not among the top eight

Feedzai11 of 421Compare →

SAS Anti-Money Laundering8 of 423Not among the top eight

A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Alessa. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 42 of the 42 answers that named Alessa and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

bureau.id31

fraud.net24

sphinxhq.com20

ondato.com18

cside.com17

guideflow.com17

fraudio.com16

thecfoclub.com16

pwc.com15

g2.com13

187 of the 187 domain citations in answers naming Alessa came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

bureau.id/resources/blog/transaction-monitoring-software31

sphinxhq.com/blog-posts/best-aml-software18

cside.com/blog/best-transaction-monitoring-software17

guideflow.com/blog/aml-software17

ondato.com/blog/best-aml-software17

thecfoclub.com/tools/best-aml-compliance-software16

pwc.com/gx/en/news-room/assets/analyst-citations/chartis_aml_transaction_monitoring-soluti15

devopsschool.com/blog/top-10-ai-aml-transaction-monitoring-tools-features-pros-cons-compar12

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Search and answers

alessa.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Alessa takes 2% of first choices and ComplyAdvantage takes 33%.

ShowHide

In search

Google, US estimates

Position for “aml and transaction monitoring platform”

–

not in the top ten

Position for “aml and transaction monitoring platforms”

–

not in the top ten

Searches for its name, Google: 4,400 a month (“alessa”)
AI search demand for its name, est.: 579 a month
Organic visits to its site: about 6,268 a month
Searches its site ranks for: 2,272 · 101 in the top three
Sites linking to it: 2,392
Paid Google search: No ads found in the estimate; that does not mean it runs none

Ads on GoogleDetailLess

1 ads · 1 text · 0 shown in the last 30 days

First shown October 2024, as Tier1 Compliance Inc, verified.

On Google's pages: 1

In answers

This edition

Share of first choices

rank 7 of 108 in AML monitoring

Segment leader

33%

ComplyAdvantage

First choices: 2 across its categories
Named in: 42 answers
Its own site cited: in 42 of the answers that named it

Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read October 5, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.

What it publishes

ShowHide

Addresses on alessa.com

516

subdomains included

Content

369

counted in the table below

Documentation

Product · Integration

0 · 0

Kind	Pages	Last 90 days	Latest
Blog	211	10	2026-10-02
Webinar or virtual event	60	0	2025-02-19
News or press	38	undated
Case study	16	0	2023-02-09
Report or ebook	16	0	2026-02-09
Template or tool	14	0	2025-11-15
Glossary or explainer	7	2	2026-08-07
Podcast or video	4	0	2020-09-30
Comparison	3	0	2022-03-01

Most recent

2026-10-02You know you work in compliance when blog
2026-09-29Pig butchering scams inside fincens 13 billion alert blog
2026-09-22Ubss 125 million bsa penalty blog
2026-09-19Form 8300 reporting requirements blog
2026-09-15Fincen 314b information sharing blog
2026-09-10Casino aml compliance blog

How it is countedHide how it is counted

Every page alessa.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read October 5, 2026.

Names read as Alessa

What the judge wrote, as written, with how often. The vendor table decides that these count as Alessa; a claim can dispute any of them.

Alessa (by Abrigo) 1Alessa (now part of Abrigo) 1

Follow Alessa

An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.

Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.

The company

Alessa is its own company.

ShowHide

In its own words

Stated by the vendor, not checked

Positioning: fraud management and AML compliance software solution
alessa.com
For: banks, casinos and gaming industry, fintechs, lenders and more
alessa.com
Free plan or trial: a 100% commitment-free demo alessa.com
Certifications: ISO 27001 : 2013 CertifiedPCI Certified
Not stated on the pages read: Price, starting price, integrations, hosting, customers

What Alessa's own pages state, read October 5, 2026: alessa.com, alessa.com/partners. A claimed page can correct any of them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Alessa's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Alessa, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives

A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Alessa by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:

where Alessa is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
who was chosen in the answers that did not name Alessa, and every reason the record gives;
a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.