Factual Data vs ICE Fraud Monitor
Verification & Data head-to-head · axis by axis, same rubric for both
CBC Companies
Intercontinental Exchange, through ICE Mortgage Technology
| Axis | Factual Data | ICE Fraud Monitor |
|---|---|---|
| Production impact | 3.6 | 3.1 |
| Functionality & depth | 3.8 | 2.8 |
| Integrations & ecosystem | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| Adoption & support | 3.8 | 3.3 |
| Return on spend | 3.8 | 2.6 |
| Overall | 3.9 | 3.0 |
Factual Data wins 5 of 5 axes. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
What the rubric says
Factual Data and ICE Fraud Monitor are both scored in Verification & Data. Factual Data carries an overall of 3.9, ICE Fraud Monitor an overall of 3. The widest gap between them is Integrations and ecosystem, at 1.3 of a point. That axis measures how well it reaches the rest of the stack. Factual Data takes it, 4.6 to 3.3.
Where the five axes separate
On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours Factual Data, 4.6 against 3.3. On Return on spend the record favours Factual Data, 3.8 against 2.6. On Functionality and depth the record favours Factual Data, 3.8 against 2.8.
Pricing posture
Factual Data does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only. ICE Fraud Monitor does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only.
Deployment and who each one targets
Deployment for Factual Data: Cloud, delivered through LOS and point of sale integrations. Deployment for ICE Fraud Monitor: Cloud, native to Encompass. Segment focus for Factual Data: Lenders of any size that need credit and verification data delivered into an uncommon. 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
Factual Data: Publishes over 250 integrations, including thirty-plus LOS platforms and a POS list. ICE Fraud Monitor: Runs natively in Encompass with write-back, so cleared conditions update the file.
What each record holds against them
Factual Data: No pricing published anywhere on the site. ICE Fraud Monitor: Launched 1 June 2026, so no independent evidence on detection quality exists.
Which one fits which shop
Best fit for Factual Data: A lender whose origination system few competitors have integrated. Best fit for ICE Fraud Monitor: Encompass shops paying a separate fraud vendor and asking underwriters to work in two.
The short answer
Factual Data finishes ahead on the published rubric, 3.9 to 3. The margin comes mostly from Integrations and ecosystem. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
Both tools are scored on the same weighted rubric, production impact carries the most weight. Comparisons are never sponsored. Disclosure →