How to read this page
Every fact about PDFChecker below carries the date it was read and names the page it came from. Their pricing, about and how-it-works pages, all read on 2026-08-06 in a browser, because the site renders its content with JavaScript and a plain fetch returns an empty shell.
Neither company publishes a detection rate, and it is worth saying so. PDFChecker and HTPBE are the two vendors in these comparisons that publish no accuracy figure at all, in a market where most publish a "99%" with no method behind it.
Side by side
| Tamperlens | PDFChecker | Stronger | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost of checking one document | Nothing. The free tier is 50 documents a month with an API key (/pricing, 2026-08-06). | $99. Core is $0.79 a check with a $99 monthly minimum, and the minimum is what a low-volume month costs (read 2026-08-06). | Tamperlens |
| Published plans | Free 50 a month; Solo $29 for 1,000; Team $199 for 10,000; Business $749 for 50,000 (2026-08-06). | Core $0.79 a check, $99 minimum; Compliance $0.45, $299 minimum; Forensic $0.25, $599 minimum; Enterprise custom (read 2026-08-06). | — |
| Certification | None. No SOC 2, no ISO 27001, no penetration-test report to share (/security). | "ISO 27001 Certified" and "SOC 2 Certified", stated on every page footer (read 2026-08-06). | PDFChecker |
| How documents reach it | One endpoint: HTTPS multipart, or the MCP server for an agent. | Dashboard drag-and-drop, API, "Dropbox, Google Drive, Amazon S3, or Microsoft OneDrive"; results in the dashboard or by webhook (read 2026-08-06). | PDFChecker |
| Breadth on every tier | 19 signal families on a PDF, plus nine image signal families and eight for Office files, identical on Free and on Business. | Known forgery template detection, cross-field consistency, authenticity and integrity, edited-document detection, API and support: the same list on all four tiers, with deepfake detection, AI-generated content analysis and document classification "included" on all plans (read 2026-08-06). | PDFChecker |
| What happens to the file | Held in memory, analysed, discarded with the response. Nothing about the document survives the request. | A dashboard that stores results and a document pipeline built to ingest from cloud storage imply retention; we did not find a retention statement we could quote (read 2026-08-06). | — |
| Output | Signals with severities and a risk band, never a verdict: unless you send your own policy, in which case the verdict is yours. | Trusted, Medium Risk or High Risk (read 2026-08-06). | — |
| Detection rate | None published. | None published (read 2026-08-06). | — |
| False-positive rate | Published at /evidence, with its population and date. | None published (read 2026-08-06). | Tamperlens |
What a thousand documents a month costs, on their published numbers
Their rates are per check with a monthly minimum, so the headline rate is not always what you pay. At 1,000 documents a month, using their figures as read on 2026-08-06:
| Plan | Rate | Minimum | 1,000 documents | Effective per document |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core | $0.79 | $99 | $790 | $0.79 |
| Compliance | $0.45 | $299 | $450 | $0.45 |
| Forensic | $0.25 | $599 | $599: the usage does not reach the minimum | $0.599 |
| Tamperlens Solo | — | None | $29 | $0.029 |
Two things follow, and both are arithmetic on numbers they publish plainly rather than anything hidden. At this volume their cheapest option is the middle plan, not the cheapest-looking one; and the $0.25 headline rate only becomes the rate you actually pay from about 2,400 documents a month ($599 ÷ $0.25), which is where usage finally clears that plan's minimum.
Rates and minimums as published on their pricing page, read 2026-08-06; each mark is that plan's minimum divided by its rate, rounded: the same arithmetic the table above uses. The drawing describes their pricing structure and says nothing about either product's detection.
Where PDFChecker is the better answer
- Your review requires a certified vendor. ISO 27001 and SOC 2 are exactly the two boxes we do not tick, and no amount of published measurement substitutes for them in a procurement process.
- You want one vendor for identity and documents. They sit inside Bynn's wider platform; we check a file and nothing else.
- You want a template database and generated-media detection. Known-forgery templates, deepfake detection and AI-content analysis are on every one of their tiers. We have none of the three, and a template corpus is not something a stateless engine can accumulate.
- Documents arrive in cloud storage, not in your code. Dropbox, Drive, S3 and OneDrive ingest with webhook results is a working pipeline; ours is an endpoint you have to call.
Where Tamperlens is the better answer
- You want to check one document. Or fifty. There is no floor to clear and no invoice to approve first.
- Volume. At a thousand documents a month the arithmetic above is $29 against $450.
- The document must not be retained. Nothing survives the response.
- Two things nobody else in this band ships: recovering the words underneath a failed redaction by replaying paint order, and finding instructions hidden in a document to steer whatever model reads it next.
- Brazil. CPF, CNPJ and boleto identifiers checked by arithmetic on the check digits, looking nothing up about anybody, with prices quoted in reais.
What we cannot do
This is the limit of structural analysis, ours included, and no measurement of how often it bites is published by anyone. Our recall is unmeasured. A known-forgery template database, which they have and we do not, is one of the ways the bottom row gets caught.
- No SOC 2 and no ISO 27001. If that is the gate, we do not clear it.
- No template database, no deepfake detection and no AI-content classifier.
- No identity proofing and no cloud-storage connectors.
- Recall is unmeasured. We know how often we flag genuine documents. We do not know how often we catch real tampering.
What none of us publishes
No vendor in the table above publishes a false-positive rate on legitimate documents: how often the system flags a genuine file. Certification says the company handles data properly. It says nothing about how often the detector is wrong about a real bank statement.
Ours is at /evidence, with the population it was measured on, the date, and the engine version that produced it. The other comparisons are at /alternatives.
Read a report before you believe a comparison
Open the “Edited after creation” sample: a precomputed report on a document whose printed total was lowered by a second revision appended after creation. No account, no upload, no quota, and nothing on this page has to be taken on trust to look at it.
Tamperlens reports risk signals, not authenticity verdicts. Signals can have benign causes; combine them with your own decision logic.