TL;DR: KYB processes have grown 25% more complex year-over-year, 41% of firms switched vendors in 2025, and 52% of digital onboarding implementations fail due to poor API interoperability. This isn't a regulation problem. It's a vendor architecture problem. And if you're the one stitching these systems together, you already know it.
I've spent 25+ years in identity and digital trust. Most of that time, I was the vendor. I sat in account team meetings watching trust erode, day by day, as our own platform couldn't keep up with what clients actually needed. So when I tell you that most KYB vendors are optimising for their own engineering convenience rather than customer outcomes, I'm not throwing stones from outside. I helped build the glass house.
Let me walk you through what's actually going wrong, and why it matters if you're an engineer building onboarding, compliance, or identity systems.
The architecture that's holding everyone hostage
Here's the situation in plain numbers. Manual KYB still costs £15-£50 per check and takes 3 to 5 days. Automated systems should cost £5-£12 and complete in minutes. The gap between "should" and "does" is where vendor architecture falls apart.
Most KYB platforms were designed as monolithic systems. One database. One decisioning engine. One way to call the API. One way to get data back. They were built when the assumption was: "We'll be the only vendor you need." That assumption was wrong in 2019. It's catastrophic in 2026.
Rigid platforms increase KYB costs by 30% versus modular alternatives. That's not my opinion. That's Forrester. And when deepfake UBO fraud is up 40% in Q1 2026 alone, a static database that refreshes on a schedule rather than in real time isn't just inconvenient. It's dangerous.
What breaks when you try to integrate
52% of digital onboarding implementations fail due to poor API interoperability. If you've ever tried to wire up a KYB vendor's API to your existing stack, that number won't surprise you.
I use what I call the "leave the house" test for every vendor we evaluate at Zenoo:
- Phone: Can we just call someone who makes decisions?
- Keys: Is there quick API access so we can build and test?
- Wallet: How complicated and slow is it to buy?
If a vendor fails all three, what care do you think goes into the actual product?
The pattern I've seen repeated dozens of times: a compliance team picks a vendor based on a slick demo. The engineering team starts integration. Then reality hits. Documentation scores sit at 3.5 out of 5 across the industry (from 231 data points we've tracked across compliance vendors). SDK maintenance is inconsistent. Support response times for production-critical issues are, to put it politely, a documented weakness.
So your engineers spend weeks on workarounds. Your compliance team waits. And your customers, the businesses you're trying to onboard, sit in a queue wondering why it takes 5 days to verify a company that's been on Companies House for a decade.
The false positive tax
Here's a number that should make every engineer building compliance systems wince: the industry average for KYB false positives is 18%. Nearly one in five checks flags something that isn't actually a problem.
That 18% doesn't just mean wasted API calls. It means manual review queues. It means compliance analysts spending hours chasing ghosts. It means your onboarding flow has a leak you can't fix with frontend optimisation because the problem is upstream, in the vendor's matching logic.
With proper ML models, that rate drops to 4%. From 18% to 4%. That's not a marginal improvement. That's the difference between a system that scales and one that drowns your ops team.
Why 41% of firms switched vendors in 2025
Forester reported that 41% of firms changed KYB vendors in 2025 due to platform rigidity. Forty-one percent. That's not normal churn. That's an industry-wide vote of no confidence.
And I get it, because I've been on both sides. When I was the vendor, I watched it happen in slow motion. The client asks for a feature. We say it's on the roadmap. Six months pass. They ask again. We show them a workaround. The workaround breaks something else. Trust erodes. They leave.
UK fintechs are collectively paying £2.1 billion in AML fines, and 73% report KYB as their biggest scaling bottleneck. The bottleneck isn't the regulation. It's vendors building platforms like it's still 2019.
The FCA isn't being subtle about this either. A £28M fine in April 2026 for KYB lapses specifically cited "rigid vendor tech" as a contributing factor. When the regulator starts naming your architecture in enforcement actions, the game has changed.
What actually works (and the trade-offs)
The engineering pattern that's emerging, and that I'm genuinely excited about after years of watching the old model fail, is compliance orchestration. Instead of being locked into one vendor's limitations, you connect best-of-breed KYB providers through a single API layer. Route checks based on risk profiles, costs, and speed requirements. Maintain unified reporting and audit trails.
Is it perfect? No. You're trading one kind of complexity (vendor lock-in) for another (orchestration logic). You need to think carefully about failover, about how you handle disagreements between providers, about how you version your routing rules as regulations change.
But here's the honest comparison from what we see: single-vendor KYB averages around 4.2 days per check. Composable, multi-vendor approaches bring that to 1.8 days. That's not a rounding error. That's the difference between closing a deal and losing it.
One thing you can do today
If you're an engineer maintaining a KYB integration right now, do this: count the hours your team spent last month on workarounds for vendor limitations. Not building features. Not improving your product. Just patching around someone else's architectural decisions.
That number is your vendor tax. And if it's anything like what I've seen across dozens of implementations, it's a lot higher than you think.
We built Zenoo to solve exactly this. If you're stitching compliance providers together and burning engineering time on vendor workarounds, it might save you the same pain.
Jonnie Davis is VP Sales & Partnerships at Zenoo, where he works with compliance and engineering teams who are tired of vendor lock-in. He's spent 25+ years in identity and digital trust, mostly as the vendor, which is why he knows where the bodies are buried.
Top comments (0)