Asurity RiskExec vs ComplianceTech

What the rubric says

Asurity RiskExec and ComplianceTech are both scored in Compliance & QC. Asurity RiskExec carries an overall of 4.3, ComplianceTech an overall of 3.3. The widest gap between them is Functionality and depth, at 1.3 of a point. That axis measures whether it handles the messy loans and not just the clean file. Asurity RiskExec takes it, 4.9 to 3.6.

Where the five axes separate

On Functionality and depth the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 4.9 against 3.6. On Adoption and support the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 4.4 against 3.3. On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 3.7 against 2.8. On Return on spend the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 4.4 against 3.6. On Production impact the record favours Asurity RiskExec, 3.8 against 3.1.

Pricing posture

Asurity RiskExec does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, saas subscription. ComplianceTech does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, subscription by product.

Deployment and who each one targets

Deployment for Asurity RiskExec: Cloud SaaS, data file upload. Deployment for ComplianceTech: Cloud, data upload driven. Segment focus for Asurity RiskExec: Banks, credit unions, and lenders with HMDA, CRA, and fair lending reporting duties. Segment focus for ComplianceTech: Banks, credit unions, mortgage companies, and regulators analysing HMDA and fair lending data. The two entries name different buyers.

What each record credits

Asurity RiskExec: Eight modules: HMDA, CRA, fair lending, fair servicing, 1071, community development, geocoding, redlining. Asurity RiskExec: Redlining and peer comparison run as first-class tools, not HMDA report add-ons. Asurity RiskExec: Preliminary modified LAR data reaches users before the regulators’ release, a timing edge. ComplianceTech: The NCUA uses LendingPatterns and Fair Lending Magic, so you analyse like your examiner. ComplianceTech: Peer benchmarking against market HMDA data comes built in, not assembled by you. ComplianceTech: Product line spans analysis, HMDA, CRA, and 1071 filing, plus fair servicing.

What each record holds against them

Asurity RiskExec: Integrations section names no specific LOS, core or data warehouse connection. Asurity RiskExec: Analysis quality depends on the loan file you supply; upstream data stays unfixed. Asurity RiskExec: No loan-level QC, document review or audit workflow, so a QC platform stays. ComplianceTech: No integrations named anywhere, so every analysis cycle starts with a manual extract. ComplianceTech: Analysis only, with no remediation workflow and no loan-level QC. ComplianceTech: Capability splits across several separately branded tools, which complicates pricing and training.

Which one fits which shop

Best fit for Asurity RiskExec: A compliance team preparing for a fair lending or redlining exam. Best fit for ComplianceTech: A compliance officer who needs peer benchmarking on HMDA data without building it in-house.

What each entry concludes

Asurity RiskExec: RiskExec is regulatory analytics, not loan QC. Asurity RiskExec: Modules cover HMDA, CRA, fair lending disposition and peer analysis, redlining, fair servicing and 1071 lending. ComplianceTech: ComplianceTech, run as CLC Compliance Technologies, sells fair lending and HMDA analytics, not compliance workflow. ComplianceTech: LendingPatterns handles market and peer analysis; Fair Lending Magic runs disparity testing.

The short answer

Asurity RiskExec finishes ahead on the published rubric, 4.3 to 3.3. The margin comes mostly from Functionality and depth. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.