Disclosure: Screening API is on this list. I'll note where that creates bias and try to be honest about what we don't do.
This article is for teams who've been told "you need to screen crypto addresses against OFAC" and are trying to figure out which tool to use. The market is confusing because vendors bundle very different capabilities under the label "compliance" — and the right answer depends on exactly what problem you're trying to solve.
Before comparing tools, be clear about which of these you need:
Option A: "Is this address on a government sanctions list?"
This is address screening. You have a wallet address. You want to know if the U.S. Treasury (OFAC), EU, or UK has designated it as belonging to a sanctioned party. The answer is binary: yes or no. You need this if you're a business that accepts or sends crypto.
Option B: "What is the risk history of this address on-chain?"
This is blockchain intelligence / transaction monitoring. You want to know if funds flowing through this address passed through a mixer, came from a darknet market, or are linked to a known hack. This requires tracing transaction graphs and attributing on-chain activity to real-world entities.
Most businesses that think they need Chainalysis actually only need Option A. Chainalysis and similar full-suite tools do both — which is why they're expensive and why smaller alternatives exist for each use case independently.
If you only need Option A, a pure-play sanctions screening API is significantly cheaper and faster to integrate. If you need Option B, or if a regulator has specifically required a licensed blockchain analytics tool, you need the full-suite players.
Chainalysis is primarily a blockchain intelligence company. Their core product is an enormous proprietary database that clusters on-chain addresses into entities — matching wallets to exchanges, OTC desks, darknet markets, and other known services. They build this by running their own nodes, monitoring the mempool, analyzing clustering patterns, and operating stings. The resulting dataset is what no one else has at the same scale.
KYT (Know Your Transaction) is the API product built on that database. When you call KYT with an address or transaction, you get back:
KYT also integrates with Chainalysis Reactor, their investigation tool, and connects to law enforcement workflows.
What Chainalysis is not is a simple "is this on a government list?" lookup. The SDN list check is a small part of what KYT does. You're paying for the transaction graph analysis and the entity attribution — the intelligence layer.
TRM is Chainalysis's closest competitor for the enterprise market. Their blockchain intelligence database covers 40+ blockchains with similar clustering and entity attribution capabilities. TRM is often cited as having stronger coverage on newer chains (Solana, Cosmos ecosystem) than Chainalysis.
TRM's pricing model is enterprise contract, similar to Chainalysis — expect a sales process and a custom quote. Annual contracts typically start in the five-figure range for smaller volumes and scale from there.
TRM also has a notable law enforcement customer base, which gives their risk signals some legitimacy in regulatory conversations ("we use the same data as the FBI" is a claim worth something in a compliance audit).
Where TRM is a better fit than Chainalysis: If you need strong multi-chain coverage beyond Bitcoin and Ethereum, or if you're a DeFi protocol that needs to integrate quickly (TRM has invested in developer experience more than Chainalysis historically has).
Where TRM is not the right fit: Same as all full-suite tools — if your requirement is simply "check the OFAC list," you're buying a lot of capability you won't use.
Elliptic's product line includes Lens (address screening), Navigator (transaction monitoring), and Discovery (investigation). Similar to TRM in scope, with a reputation for stronger DeFi and NFT coverage.
Elliptic is based in London and has historically had better coverage of the EU regulatory environment, which matters if you're navigating MiCA compliance alongside U.S. OFAC requirements.
Pricing is enterprise contract. Similar ballpark to Chainalysis and TRM for comparable volumes.
Where Elliptic is a better fit: European businesses for whom EU regulatory familiarity matters. DeFi projects with complex on-chain activity that needs tracing.
Where Elliptic is not the right fit: If you need simple address-level sanctions screening and you're primarily U.S.-focused, Elliptic's EU emphasis may not matter to you.
Merkle Science occupies a middle tier — more feature-rich than pure sanctions screening APIs but less expensive and less enterprise than Chainalysis/TRM/Elliptic. They cover 20+ chains and offer both transaction monitoring and sanctions screening.
Merkle Science has a stronger presence in the Asia-Pacific market and has experience with APAC regulatory frameworks alongside U.S./EU/UK requirements.
Pricing is less opaque than the top tier — they'll give you ballpark numbers without a full sales process. Expect four figures per month for meaningful volume.
Where Merkle Science is a better fit: Mid-size crypto businesses in APAC, or businesses that want more than pure sanctions screening but can't justify a Chainalysis contract. Better developer experience than the top-tier vendors.
Where Merkle Science is not the right fit: If you need the deepest possible transaction graph data, the top-tier vendors have more comprehensive databases.
Crystal (owned by Bitfury) focuses on compliance tools for exchanges and financial institutions. Their product covers blockchain analytics for 100+ cryptocurrencies and includes watchlist screening against OFAC, EU, and UN lists.
Crystal has a published pricing page (unusual in this space) with per-transaction pricing models, which makes it easier to model costs before engaging sales.
Where Crystal is a better fit: Businesses that want transaction-level analytics pricing rather than a flat monthly fee. European and Eastern European market familiarity.
Where Crystal is not the right fit: If you need deep U.S. law enforcement connections (Crystal is EU-focused), or if you need the transaction graph depth of the U.S. big three.
AnChain.AI focuses on smart contract risk analysis and DeFi-specific compliance. Their AI-based approach to risk scoring is differentiated from the cluster-based approach of most other vendors.
AnChain.AI is a better fit for projects that interact heavily with DeFi protocols and need to understand smart contract risk, not just wallet risk.
Where AnChain.AI is a better fit: DeFi-native compliance needs where smart contract risk is as important as wallet risk.
Where AnChain.AI is not the right fit: If your primary use case is straightforward sanctions list screening, AnChain's differentiation around smart contract AI analysis isn't relevant.
We are a pure-play sanctions screening API. We check addresses against the OFAC SDN list, EU Consolidated List, UK FCDO list, and community threat intelligence. We do not do blockchain intelligence, transaction graph analysis, or VASP attribution.
What we do:
What we don't do:
If a regulator is asking for blockchain analytics evidence — proof that you traced the transaction history and identified the ultimate beneficial owner — we're not the right tool for that. You need a full-suite vendor.
If your requirement is "screen this address against the OFAC list before we process this transaction," we handle that well at a fraction of the cost of enterprise blockchain analytics.
| Chainalysis KYT | TRM Labs | Elliptic | Merkle Science | Crystal | AnChain.AI | Screening API | DIY | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OFAC SDN | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| EU/UK lists | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | Partial | ✓ | Possible |
| Transaction graph tracing | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — |
| VASP attribution | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | — | — | — |
| Smart contract risk | — | Partial | Partial | — | — | ✓ | — | — |
| Self-serve signup | — | — | — | — | — | — | ✓ | n/a |
| Transparent pricing | — | — | — | Partial | ✓ | — | ✓ | n/a |
| Free tier | — | — | — | — | — | — | ✓ | — |
| Approx. cost/month | $2k–$20k+ | $2k–$20k+ | $2k–$20k+ | $1k–$5k+ | Per-txn | Custom | $99–$799 | Eng time |
Full-suite pricing is approximate based on publicly available information and community reports. Actual pricing requires a sales conversation. Screening API pricing is published at /pricing.
If you have engineering resources and a relatively simple use case, you can build your own OFAC screening pipeline:
This is a reasonable 2–3 week engineering project for an experienced backend developer. The ongoing maintenance costs are the less obvious problem: schema changes, new chains, EU token URL rotations, validation tuning.
For OFAC-only screening without deep blockchain intelligence, DIY is a viable option if:
For multi-jurisdiction coverage (EU, UK), the complexity increases substantially — different data formats, update cadences, and address extraction approaches.
The case for using an API gets stronger when you factor in maintenance. You're not just buying the initial build; you're buying out of the ongoing responsibility to keep it working.
You need Chainalysis/TRM/Elliptic if:
You need a mid-tier tool (Merkle Science, Crystal) if:
You need a pure sanctions screening API (Screening API) if:
You should build it yourself if:
The free checker on the homepage lets you test any address right now — no account needed. For API access, create an account and you'll be able to generate API keys from your dashboard.
The Starter plan at $99/month covers 10,000 requests — enough for a meaningful pilot before deciding whether to upgrade. There's no minimum commitment or setup fee.
If you have questions about whether Screening API fits your compliance requirements, the API docs show exactly what data we return and what we don't. If the limitations I described above are disqualifying for your use case, we'd rather you know that before you build an integration.
This comparison reflects publicly available information as of May 2026. All pricing information for enterprise vendors is approximate and subject to change. Screening API's own pricing is available at /pricing. This article was written by the Screening API team — treat it accordingly when weighing the comparison.