AML solutions for fintechs: lessons from buiding in-house

For fintechs, finding the right AML solution is a high-stakes decision. Building your own compliance tools may seem like the best way to maintain control—but what starts as a manageable project can quickly escalate into an overwhelming challenge.

In this blog, we share key insights from Ester and Taavi, Salv’s Head of Product and CEO, two fincrime fighting experts who helped build in-house compliance tools at Wise. Taken from our e-book into building versus buying AML tools, this blog shares just some of the hidden complexities with AML solutions for fintechs, helping you make the right decision for your use case.

Three lessons on building AML solutions for fintechs

1. There’s far more complexity than you expect

What may seem manageable at first can quickly become overwhelming as the scope of the project expands—and the smallest oversight can lead to major headaches down the line. The learning curve was steep for Salv’s founders, who gradually improved their tools through trial and error. But each lesson learned was a challenge to overcome, often requiring urgent and resource-intensive fixes. Screening and monitoring aren’t just about creating the best tool for fighting crime that scales with your organisation. It also needs to meet every new and existing regulatory requirement along the way.

For more insights, check out the full e-book 7 Reasons Why You Shouldn’t Build Your own AML Screening or Monitoring Tool.

“At Wise, we had brilliant engineers, and we wanted tools tailored exactly to our needs. We also had global ambitions and knew our tech stack had to work across every region, jurisdiction, and regulation. This meant we were in a pretty unique position in terms of how complex our requirements were.”

Focus on your core competencies

When your resources are limited, you need to prioritise development on projects that deliver the greatest value for customers. Similar to how we don’t build our own instant messaging systems or word processing tools, and opt for Slack and Google Docs instead.

“One customer told us their internal compliance tool became such a time drain they had to dedicate 80% of their development time to keeping it afloat,” says Ester Eggert, Head of Product at Salv. “That leaves just 20% for all customer-focused initiatives. That’s not a winning ratio. Building in-house can look like a better solution in the short- term, but it’s never finished.”

Building never stops

Building in-house is like getting a pet: amazing at first, but it becomes expensive as time goes on. These projects often seem cost-effective on the surface. After all, it’s just a few engineers, some time, and a lot of coffee, right? But the reality is that the work doesn’t stop once the platform is built.

Maintenance and running costs are often underestimated or not properly accounted for. Keeping the system up to date with the latest requirements, ensuring a robust security surface, system scaling, security updates, dedicated infrastructure, partnerships with data providers and their integrations, working through new regulations with your lawyers, adapting to industry changes, integration work, and training employees all add up. And then there’s firefighting when things break.

Even if you decide to buy a solution, you’ll still need in-house engineers to manage integrations and ensure the system runs properly. However, the overall resource burden is far smaller than building, maintaining and updating the entire platform yourself.

Choosing which way to go

Ultimately, your company’s long-term vision will determine whether the cost of building in-house tools is worth it. Now that we’ve given you a snapshot of some of the things to consider when deciding how to approach AML solutions for your fintech business, learn more by downloading the e-book, which includes:

• Hidden costs you might not have considered
• How to build auditor-friendly compliance tools
• The risks of knowledge silos and algorithm transparency