kyccost

Independent reference. Not legal or regulatory advice. Consult a qualified compliance specialist for advice specific to your jurisdiction and risk profile. See methodology.

Independent reference / 2026 edition

KYC cost per customer, fully loaded.

What an onboarded customer actually costs your firm in 2026. Vendor checks, sanctions screening, ongoing monitoring, and the operations labour everyone forgets to include.

CDD typical
£4 - £18
per onboarded customer
EDD typical
£35 - £140
high-risk fully-loaded
Annual monitoring
£8 - £45
per active customer

Aligned to the FATF Recommendations (with the February 2025 amendment) and the UK Money Laundering Regulations 2017. Cost ranges are practitioner-sourced from public vendor pricing, the LSEG / Forrester True Cost of AML Compliance benchmark, and PwC perpetual KYC labour-saving figures. Full sourcing on the methodology page.

The unit that matters is per-customer, not per-check.

Vendor invoices show a per-check or per-verification line. That figure understates the total cost of getting a customer onboarded by 60-120%. The defensible operational unit is the fully-loaded per-customer figure: vendor checks plus sanctions / PEP / adverse media screening cycles, plus the operations labour to investigate the alerts those cycles generate, plus an EDD overlay weighted by the high-risk population, plus the year-one share of ongoing monitoring on the active book. CFOs and Heads of Compliance defend per-customer cost in board packs because customer-acquisition cost and lifetime value are computed on the same denominator.

The five components below are the canonical decomposition. Each links through to the deep-dive page where the assumption set, the source list and the worked examples sit.

Three personas, fully-loaded.

The same fintech onboards all three. The cost differential between a low-risk retail customer and a high-risk EDD customer can be 30-40x at the unit level. Risk mix is consequently the dominant cost variable on a fintech compliance budget, ahead of vendor selection.

PersonaVendor checksScreeningOps labourY1 monitoringFully loaded
Low-risk retail customer
Resident, government ID, no PEP / sanctions hit
£0.852.40£0.050.55£0.502.20£818£418
EMI corporate customer
UBO mapping, two directors, single jurisdiction
£6.0022.00£1.205.40£14.0038.00£1835£2478
High-risk EDD customer
Cross-border UBO chain, source-of-funds review, PEP-adjacent
£8.0028.00£2.008.50£28.0095.00£3560£45180

Persona figures are practitioner-sourced from public ComplyCube / Sumsub vendor rates, LSEG / Forrester True Cost of AML Compliance, and engagement histories. Year-1 monitoring is the share of annual recurring cost attributable to the onboarding cohort in the customer's first year.

Sanity-check your scenario.

Three inputs, a defensible per-customer figure and an annual onboarding-cost line. The full calculator on the calculator page adds business-model presets, a build / buy / hybrid switch, and the annual ongoing line. Math is transparent on the methodology page. No email gate to release the result.

Inputs
50,000
1k50k250k1M
10%
0%15%30%60%
Jurisdiction
Output
Fully-loaded per-customer onboarding cost
£12.50 - £33.00
Annual onboarding cost (volume × per-customer)
£625,000 - £1,650,000
Indicative blended figure. Includes vendor checks, screening, ops labour, and EDD overlay weighted by population. Excludes ongoing monitoring (separate annual line).
Open the full calculator

Two regulatory anchors that move the budget.

FATF February 2025 amendment on proportionality

The February 2025 update to the FATF Recommendations replaced the word "commensurate" with "proportionate" throughout the risk-based-approach guidance, with further June 2025 commentary explicitly encouraging simplified due diligence in lower-risk scenarios. For UK and EU fintechs that have over-indexed on uniform CDD across a low-risk consumer book, the amendment is a defensible cost-saving lever. The risk-assessment work that supports a tiered approach is itself a cost line, but a rigorous risk assessment pays back several times its build cost in reduced screening cycles and ops labour. See fatf-gafi.org for the published Recommendations.

UK MLR 2017 and FCA Handbook SYSC 6.3

The Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/692) are the binding statutory instrument; FCA Handbook SYSC 6.3 sets the financial-crime systems-and-controls expectations. JMLSG Guidance gives the sectoral interpretation that a UK MLRO is expected to follow. The cost implications are concrete: Regulation 33 enumerates EDD triggers (PEPs, high-risk third-country relationships, complex / unusual transactions); each trigger maps to a discrete operational cost on the page. See the geography page for a UK / EU / US comparison and the CDD vs EDD page for how triggers cost out.

Common questions about KYC cost

How much does KYC cost per customer in 2026?+
Fully-loaded onboarding cost typically falls in £4-£18 for a low-risk retail customer, £24-£78 for an EMI corporate customer, and £45-£180 for a high-risk EDD customer. The wide ranges reflect risk profile, geography and onboarding volume. The vendor invoice line is usually 35-55% of the total; ops labour, screening cycles and EDD overlay account for the rest.
Why do vendor blogs quote a much lower number?+
Vendor blogs quote per-check pricing for the platform component they sell. That figure excludes ops labour for alert review, EDD overlay for high-risk customers, ongoing monitoring on the active book, and the screening cycles that run after the onboarding event. A defensible per-customer figure has to add all five components, which is what this site does.
Is sanctions screening included in standard KYC vendor pricing?+
It is usually bundled into the platform price as a per-cycle line item. Procurement and finance teams need it broken out for two reasons: to compare quotes that bundle differently, and to size the labour cost of investigating sanctions / PEP / adverse media hits. £0.05-£1.20 per screening cycle is the typical published vendor range.
What does FATF require and how does it affect cost?+
FATF Recommendations 10, 12 and 22 set the baseline for CDD, PEPs and DNFBPs. The February 2025 FATF amendment swapped 'commensurate' for 'proportionate', explicitly encouraging simplified due diligence in lower-risk scenarios. National regulators implement on top: in the UK, MLR 2017 (SI 2017/692) is the binding statutory instrument, with FCA Handbook SYSC 6.3 setting financial-crime systems-and-controls obligations. JMLSG Guidance gives the sectoral interpretation.
Does perpetual KYC actually save money?+
PwC benchmarks 60-80% labour savings on the periodic-review process for institutions that migrate to pKYC. The headline benchmark is a mid-sized bank scenario with corporate customers. For fintechs, the absolute saving is roughly £4-£8 per active customer per year vs traditional annual / biennial review. The implementation cost is the offsetting line: small fintechs spend tens of thousands; mid-sized institutions £100k-£500k; large banks several million.
How should a fintech sanity-check a vendor quote?+
Compare the per-check rate to public ComplyCube and Sumsub anchors ($0.10-$1.50 ID document, $0.25-$2.00 biometric, $1.35 Sumsub reusable verification). Add screening cycles, EDD overlay weighted by your high-risk population, ops labour weighted by your hit rate. The gap between vendor invoice and fully-loaded per-customer cost is typically 60-120%; if a vendor quote ignores that gap, the budget will overrun.

Sources cited on this page

  1. FATF Recommendations (Feb 2025 update; June 2025 RBA guidance)
  2. Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/692)
  3. FCA Handbook SYSC 6.3 financial crime systems and controls
  4. JMLSG Guidance, current edition
  5. ComplyCube published per-check pricing · $0.10-$1.50 ID document, $0.25-$2.00 biometric
  6. Sumsub published platform pricing · $1.35 reusable verification, plans from $149/mo
  7. LSEG / Forrester True Cost of AML Compliance, most recent edition · $72.9M average enterprise figure cited via FNZ and Fenergo
  8. PwC Perpetual KYC: A new approach to periodic reviews · 60-80% labour saving on periodic-review process