Skip to content
Subscribe

The Work Number vs ICE Fraud Monitor

Verification & Data head-to-head · axis by axis, same rubric for both

All Verification & Data head-to-heads →

The Work Number
Equifax Inc.
3.4
ICE Fraud Monitor
Intercontinental Exchange, through ICE Mortgage Technology
3.0
AxisThe Work NumberICE Fraud Monitor
Production impact 4.1 3.1
Functionality & depth 3.6 2.8
Integrations & ecosystem 4.3 3.3
Adoption & support 3.5 3.3
Return on spend 1.8 2.6
Overall 3.4 3.0

The Work Number wins 4 of 5 axes. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.

What the rubric says

The Work Number and ICE Fraud Monitor are both scored in Verification & Data. The Work Number carries an overall of 3.4, ICE Fraud Monitor an overall of 3. The widest gap between them is Integrations and ecosystem, at 1 of a point. That axis measures how well it reaches the rest of the stack. The Work Number takes it, 4.3 to 3.3.

Where the five axes separate

On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours The Work Number, 4.3 against 3.3. On Production impact the record favours The Work Number, 4.1 against 3.1. On Functionality and depth the record favours The Work Number, 3.6 against 2.8.

Pricing posture

The Work Number does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, priced per verification. ICE Fraud Monitor does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only.

Deployment and who each one targets

Deployment for The Work Number: Cloud, reached by REST API, batch SFTP, web portal or direct LOS integration. Deployment for ICE Fraud Monitor: Cloud, native to Encompass. Segment focus for The Work Number: Any lender that needs instant employment and income data with GSE rep and warrant. Segment focus for ICE Fraud Monitor: Encompass lenders wanting fraud scoring and property risk inside the loan file. The two entries name different buyers.

What each record credits

The Work Number: Authorized for Fannie Mae DU validation and Freddie Mac AIM, so hits bring relief. ICE Fraud Monitor: Runs natively in Encompass with write-back, so cleared conditions update the file.

What each record holds against them

The Work Number: Highest per-verification cost in the category; a class action alleges $17.85 rose to $66.45. ICE Fraud Monitor: Launched 1 June 2026, so no independent evidence on detection quality exists.

Which one fits which shop

Best fit for The Work Number: Lenders who need the highest instant hit rate and have decided to pay. Best fit for ICE Fraud Monitor: Encompass shops paying a separate fraud vendor and asking underwriters to work in two.

The short answer

The Work Number finishes ahead on the published rubric, 3.4 to 3. The margin comes mostly from Integrations and ecosystem. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.

Who stands behind this review

MortgageTechReview

This score rests on evidence anyone can check. It also rests on the vendor's own documentation, pricing, integration pages, and ownership records. We do not claim to run every product ourselves. Nobody can. The rubric was published before this review existed. The vendor did not write this, and no vendor can buy a word of it. Every product in this category is weighted the same way.

How this was scored · Who publishes this · Dispute this score · Disclosure

Both tools are scored on the same weighted rubric, production impact carries the most weight. Comparisons are never sponsored. Disclosure →

The Stack Memo · free · one email a month

One email a month: what's actually worth demoing.

New reviews, category shake-ups, pricing changes we've spotted. No vendor spam, unsubscribe anytime.

No vendor spam·We never sell your address·Unsubscribe in one click

Or read the buying guides →

317 products · 15 categories · one rubric

Every mortgage tool, scored the same way.

No pay-for-play, no vendor-written listicles, no gate. Start from the category you are actually buying in.

Compare →