veriastra_
Fraud Detection · Alternatives

IPQualityScore alternatives

If you are weighing up a move off IPQualityScore, here are the options that actually exist, what to check before you commit, and the cases where staying put is the right call.

Why people look

Common reasons to shop around

  • You want to see why a risk score was produced, rather than accept an opaque number.
  • Your fraud checks and your contact validation live in two vendors and you are reconciling them by hand.
  • You need the underlying network facts, ASN, hosting range, anonymiser status, and not only the score.
The options

What you can move to

Veriastra

details →

IP intelligence returns the components: ASN and organisation, datacenter classification, proxy and Tor status, blocklist matches by list name, alongside the score.

IPQualityScore

Broader fraud-suite surface including device fingerprinting, which we do not offer at all.

MaxMind

Long-established geolocation and risk data, with a self-hosted database option if you want lookups to never leave your infrastructure.

Public data

Cloud provider ranges, Tor exit lists and several blocklists are published free. Worth knowing what portion of any score you could compute yourself.

Before you switch

Three things worth checking

Explainability

When a score blocks a real customer, you need to know which signal did it. An unexplained number cannot be tuned or defended.

Refresh rate on network data

Cloud ranges change constantly. Stale data silently misclassifies new allocations as residential.

Where processing happens

A hosted API sees every address you check. A self-hosted database does not.

Moving across

What the switch actually involves

  1. 01

    Split the requirement first

    If you use their transaction or chargeback scoring, that is not something we sell and no amount of IP data replaces it. Move the IP, email and phone lookups; keep them for the payment risk model.

  2. 02

    The endpoint

    POST /api/lookup-ip returns location, ASN and registered organisation, reverse DNS, BGP routing with RPKI validation, connection type, proxy/VPN/Tor with the provider named, bogon status, DNSBL and PBL listings, and a risk score.

  3. 03

    The field that changes name

    Their `fraud_score` becomes our `risk`, and the booleans they return as `proxy`/`vpn`/`tor` come back with the provider identified rather than as a flag alone.

  4. 04

    What you get that has no equivalent

    RPKI route origin validation — a cryptographic check on whether the announcement carrying that address is authorised.

    It is in neither their answer nor MaxMind's, and it is the difference between an opinion about an address and a fact about its routing.

  5. 05

    Run both for a week

    Score the same traffic through both and look at the rows where one says high risk and the other says low. Those are the decisions that will change, and there are usually few enough to read.

When to buy something else

We do not do device fingerprinting or behavioural biometrics. If your fraud model depends on those, you need a suite, and we would be one input to it rather than a replacement.