SanctionsAI vs Notabene
An honest comparison of SanctionsAI and Notabene for teams wiring compliance into crypto payment flows.
TL;DR
TL;DR: Notabene is the travel-rule layer — counterparty messaging and beneficiary-owner checks between VASPs. SanctionsAI is a screening API for the agent path — one HTTP/MCP call before a payment, under 100 ms, from $19/mo. Travel rule and sanctions screening are different obligations; most compliant stacks end up needing both.
What Notabene does well
- Travel-rule compliance for VASP-to-VASP transfers
- Beneficiary-owner and counterparty verification messaging
- Purpose-built for regulated crypto exchanges
Where Notabene falls short for agent payments
- Built for VASP messaging, not agent-initiated micro-payments
- Sanctions screening is not its core function
- Pricing not published — enterprise contracts (Not documented publicly)
Where SanctionsAI wins
- Screens 947 OFAC wallets, 19,218 names, 16 jurisdictions in under 100 ms
- Agent-native: HTTP, MCP, CLI — a single call before settlement
- Free tier, $19/mo dev plan, MIT-licensed self-host
When to use which
Notabene for travel-rule messaging between regulated VASPs. SanctionsAI for the screen-before-sign step on every agent payment. The 2026 SEI research report documents the exposure when neither is in place.
Methodology
Methodology
Scoring dimensions: screening scope (wallets/names/jurisdictions), agent-path support (HTTP/MCP/CLI), latency, pricing model, and self-hosting. Each score level: Low = not documented or limited, Medium = partial, High = strong and documented. Not scored: SOC 2 and certifications we cannot verify, private-beta features, and internal policies. Re-evaluated quarterly; next review 2026-11.