How to read this page
Every fact about Resistant AI below carries the date it was read, and names the page it was read on. Prices, claims and statistics in this market move; the date is what tells you how much to trust a line and what to re-check.
No detection rate is repeated here as evidence. A detection rate with no stated population and no ground truth is a claim, not a measurement, and that applies to every vendor including us. We publish none.
Side by side
| Tamperlens | Resistant AI | Stronger | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | Published. Free tier of 50 documents a month; Solo is $29 for 1,000 documents a month, which is $0.029 a document (/pricing, 2026-08-06). | None published. We found no price, no tier and no rate card on their site (read 2026-08-06). | Tamperlens |
| How you buy it | Sign up, get a key, call the API. No conversation required. | Demo-first. "Book a demo" is the route offered on the pages we read (read 2026-08-06). | Tamperlens |
| Scale behind the analysis | One engine, and a corpus we measured ourselves: 1,728 documents nobody curated, plus 705 published documents. | "170 million+ documents processed since our founding in 2019": Global Document Fraud Report 2026, published 26 Feb 2026, updated 22 Jul 2026 (read 2026-08-06). | Resistant AI |
| Breadth of analysis | Structure and metadata: 19 signal families on a PDF, plus image containers and Office files. No classifier, and no data from other customers. | A far broader platform: model-based document forensics, serial fraud correlated across their customer base, and threat intelligence. We have no equivalent of any of it. | Resistant AI |
| Enterprise assurance | None. No SOC 2, no ISO 27001, one server in Finland, no on-premise build (/security). | An enterprise programme sold to banks and regulated lenders. We cannot inspect its contents from outside, which is exactly what a procurement team is buying. | Resistant AI |
| What happens to the file | Held in memory, analysed, discarded with the response. No upload directory, no object store, nothing about the document survives the request. | We could not establish a retention position from their public pages (read 2026-08-06), so we do not state one here. | — |
| False-positive rate | Published at /evidence, with the population and the date it was measured on. | None published. Their 2026 report does state the basis of its analysis, which is more than most of this field does, but no rate on legitimate documents accompanies it. | Tamperlens |
Where Resistant AI is the better answer
- You need a platform, not a signal. Identity, transaction and document risk under one contract, with a customer-success function attached, is a thing we do not sell and are not trying to.
- Your procurement process requires certification. If the review will not clear a vendor without SOC 2 or ISO 27001, we fail that review today and saying otherwise would waste your time.
- You want the benefit of what other customers have already seen. Correlating a forged template across many organisations is structurally unavailable to a stateless API that keeps nothing. That is a real capability and it is a real cost of our design.
Where Tamperlens is the better answer
- You want to try it before talking to anyone. Fifty documents a month, free, with an API key.
- You need to know the price. Ours is on a page. A cost you cannot see until the third call is a cost you cannot budget.
- The document must not be retained. Nothing survives the response, so there is no store of your customers' bank statements to reason about later.
- You want the same answer twice. The engine is deterministic: the same bytes produce the same signals, and a signal's explanation names the object it came from, so a decision can be audited rather than trusted.
Two live numbers that disagree, and why this page carries dates
Both quotations read 2026-08-06. The drawing shows two published totals and their dates. It does not show which is right, and we do not claim either is an error. The most likely explanation is a redefinition, not a mistake.
The newer, more carefully sourced document cites the smaller number. The most likely explanation is a redefinition rather than an error: the report scopes itself to a narrower population than the marketing page counts. We raise it for one reason only. It is the clearest illustration of why a competitor fact without a read date is worth very little, and why the ones on this page have them.
For the same reason we quote no figure from their home page: two loads of it returned different statistics, so there is no stable number there to quote.
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. Catching the bottom row needs a reference for the issuer's genuine output, or verification at the source.
- Recall is unmeasured. We publish how often we flag genuine documents. We do not know how often we catch real tampering, and we will not publish a number we have not measured.
- A document forged from scratch and never edited may carry no structural trace at all. Structure evidence is evidence of editing, not of truth.
- A cleanly regenerated PDF launders most byte-level signals. The one family that survives whole-file laundering is redaction exposure.
- No identity proofing, and no verification of a person.
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. It is the number that decides how much manual review a detector costs you, and it is the one number this field does not print.
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.